Court Opinion

ID: 9547921
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:54:19.863517+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:18:14.958743
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Frantz
specially concurring:
A definitive decision requires us to discountenance language in National Lumber & Creosoting Co. v. Kelly, 101 Colo. 535, 75 P. (2d) 144, indicating that the Commission, in its discretion, may order invasions of the body of a claimant by surgery or puncture as part of a physical examination.
C.R.S. ’53, 81-12-12, in part provides: “Whenever, in case of injury, the right to compensation under this chapter would exist in favor of an employee, upon the written request of his employer, or the insurer carrying such risk, he shall submit himself from time to time to examination by a physician or surgeon, * * * and he shall likewise submit to an examination from time to time by any regular physician selected and paid for by said Commission, or a member or examiner thereof. * * * If any employee * * * shall refuse to submit to such medical or surgical treatment as is reasonably essential to promote his recovery, the Commission, in its *237discretion, may reduce or suspend the compensation of any such injured employee.”
It is to be noted that this provision of the Workmen’s Compensation Act provides for two things: 1) an examination by a physician or surgeon, and 2) medical or surgical treatment reasonably essential to promote recovery.
Exploratory surgery may be a phase, under the circumstances present here, of examination. Such an operation may be defined as the opening of any body cavity or tissues for the purpose of examining the contents thereof and the structures related thereto, to determine the nature of the pathological processes present, if any, and the treatment thereof, if such be amenable to treatment.
In a civil suit the ruling of the trial court refusing to require a spinal puncture was sustained in Riss & Co., Inc. v. Galloway, 108 Colo. 93, 114 P. (2d) 550, 135 A.L.R. 878, the court saying that “it would have been an invasion of plaintiff’s rights, and beyond the court’s authority without plaintiff’s consent.” Only when a claimant consents may an exploratory operation be undertaken. Other cases holding to like effect are U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Wickline, 103 Nebr. 681, 173 N.W. 689; Burns v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., 95 Mont. 186, 26 P. (2d) 175.