Court Opinion

ID: 9471666
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:38:12.770122+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:31.486806
License: Public Domain

*788LUMBARD,* Senior Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the decision reinstating the judgment of the ALJ, for the reasons stated in II A 2 and II C of Judge Edwards’ opinion: that the ALJ’s finding that Dr. Gordon was not the “employer’s physician,” which is supported by substantial evidence, precludes Lloyd from excusing his own failure to comply with the notice and consent requirements of §§ 7(b) and (d) by reference to Dr. Gordon’s conduct; and that the ALJ did not abuse his discretion in declining to excuse Dr. Schuster’s failure to file a timely report.
However, as either of the above grounds is sufficient to uphold the ALJ’s decision denying compensation for treatment provided by Dr. Schuster, I see no reason to reach the question whether Dr. Gordon’s conclusion that Lloyd needed no further treatment was in fact tantamount to a refusal to treat Lloyd. As I have some doubt that there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s finding that it was not, I would rest the decision solely on the grounds discussed in II A 2 and II C of the court’s opinion.

 Sitting by designation.