Court Opinion

ID: 9535708
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:52:08.108668+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:18.709364
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Justice,
concurring specially.
I am in accord with the result reached in the opinion of the Court, and I have no fault to find with the rationale espoused. What seems painfully obvious to me, however, is that there never was any mistake of fact involved in this case. When the doctor testified that he was under the assumption that his maximum medical improvement certification would have no effect on Smith’s right to future temporary disability benefits, the doctor was not articulating any mistake as to the facts, he was explaining that he was mistaken about the legal effect of his certification. His *692mistake was one of law, not of fact, and serves as a graphic reminder of the hazards that are encountered when one assumes to act outside the scope of professional competence.