Court Opinion

ID: 9740678
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:40:17.036949+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:19.708806
License: Public Domain

YANDE WALLE, Justice,
concurring specially.
I agree that the stipulation between Schmidt and the Bureau governs this case pursuant to our decision in Ekstrom v. N.D. Workers Comp. Bureau, 478 N.W.2d 380 (N.D.1991). Nevertheless, I believe a “reasoning mind” (see Power Fuels, Inc. v. Elkin, 283 N.W.2d 214 (N.D.1979)) could have determined, as did the Bureau, that Dr. Juhala was of the opinion that “the need for home nursing care was not warranted any longer, since claimant was able to take care of himself” within the terms of the stipulation.
Notwithstanding this belief, I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion. It was the responsibility of the Bureau to determine whether it was Dr. Juhala’s opinion on March 17, 1990, that Schmidt had improved to a point where the type of assistance needed was nonessential or different from that needed at the time of Dr. Juhala’s letter on February 10, 1988, thus expressing his medical opinion on a change in Schmidt’s condition, or whether, as the majority opinion finds, Dr. Juhala was expressing his “legal opinion on compensation”. See, e.g., Matuska v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau, 482 N.W.2d 856 (N.D.1992). [Inconsistent medical opinions, not arising from leading questions on theoretical possibilities on cross examination must be explained.] Here, despite an October 31, 1990, deposition at which both the Bureau and Schmidt were represented, Dr. Juhala was not asked to compare his opinion in 1990 with *191that of 1988 and to explain any discrepancies between or misunderstanding of either opinion. That is the Bureau’s responsibility according to this Court’s decision in Claim of Bromley, 304 N.W.2d 412 (N.D. 1981) as explained in Kopp v. N.D. Workers Compensation Bureau, 462 N.W.2d 132 (N.D.1990), and Matuska, supra. Those decisions effectively hold that where there are apparent discrepancies in the medical opinion of a physician which are inherent in the opinions and not created as a result of leading questions as to possible alternative causes or diagnoses on cross-examination, and which are not explained by the physician, the Bureau may not rely on the part of the opinion favorable to its position and ignore the portion that is unfavorable to its opinion, without further clarification. There was no further clarification in this instance and I therefore concur in the result reached by the majority opinion.