Opinion ID: 430490
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Requirement of a Physician's Report

Text: Section 7(d) of the Act provides in part: 33 [N]or shall any claim for medical or surgical treatment be valid and enforceable, as against such employer, unless within ten days following the first treatment the physician giving such treatment furnish to the employer and the Secretary a report of such injury and treatment, on a form prescribed by the Secretary. The Secretary may, however, excuse the failure to furnish such report within ten days when he finds it to be in the interest of justice to do so, and he may, upon application by a party in interest, make an award for the reasonable value of such medical or surgical treatment so obtained by the employee. 34 33 U.S.C. Sec. 907(d) (1976); see also 20 C.F.R. Sec. 702.422 (1983) (delegating to the Deputy Commissioner and administrative law judge). 35 In the present case, the ALJ found that although Dr. Schuster began treatment of Mr. Lloyd in August 1977, he did not submit any report to the employer, the carrier, or the Deputy Commissioner until December 1, 1977. The ALJ further found no adequate reason or good cause for Dr. Schuster's failure to file a timely report, 7 and therefore the ALJ declined to excuse the noncompliance. 36 The Board, however, relied on Shahady v. Atlas Tile & Marble Co., 682 F.2d 968 (D.C.Cir.1982) (per curiam), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 786, 74 L.Ed.2d 993 (1983), to hold that the ALJ abused his discretion by not excusing Dr. Schuster's failure to file a timely report. In Shahady, this court, relying solely on its reading of George O. Buckhaults, 2 BEN.REV.BD.SERV. (MB) 277 (Sept. 19, 1975), held that failure to file a timely report should be excused where medical services are otherwise reimbursable due to the employer's refusal to provide necessary further treatment. 682 F.2d at 970. In the present case, however, the ALJ's finding that the employer did not refuse to provide necessary further treatment is conclusive; therefore, the doctrine announced in Shahady is inapplicable. 37 We note, however, that the Shahady doctrine is based on an apparent misreading of Buckhaults. In Buckhaults, the Board concluded only that the administrative law judge's failure to recognize that the claimant was 'refused' further medical treatment negates the finding that there was no justification for the failure to report. 2 BEN.REV.BD.SERV. at 280. Accordingly, the Board remanded to the ALJ to determine whether the failure to report was excusable in light of the employer's refusal of further medical care. Id. The Board in Buckhaults did not hold that the ALJ must as a matter of law excuse the failure to file the section 7(d) report when the employer has refused to provide treatment. This is consistent with the statute and the regulations, which give the ALJ discretion to excuse noncompliance with the reporting requirement. Accordingly, if in the present case the employer had refused to provide further medical treatment, the appropriate disposition would not be to reverse but rather to remand to the ALJ for further consideration. But because the employer did not refuse to provide further treatment, and because there was no adequate reason or good cause for Dr. Schuster's failure to file a timely report, we affirm the decision of the ALJ on this last alternative ground of judgment.