Court Opinion

ID: 9688424
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 17:46:41.965559+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:06:17.150297
License: Public Domain

LEVINE, Justice,
dissenting.
I join in that portion of Justice Meschke’s rationale that supports the conclusion that Howes was denied a fair hearing because of his inability to cross-examine, at the Bureau’s expense, Dr. Peterson, an expert retained by and relied upon by the Bureau.
However, because Dr. Larson was the claimant’s physician consulted at the behest of Howes’ physicians and not at the behest of the Bureau, I believe that the claimant, not the Bureau, bears the burden to subpoena or depose Dr. Larson.
I would reverse to afford Howes the opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Peterson.