Court Opinion

ID: 9672588
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:57:38.410133+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:17.379312
License: Public Domain

Ed. F. McFaddin, Associate Justice (concurring). The purpose of this concurrence is to emphasize my firm view that neither the employer nor the insurance carrier has the right to require an injured employee to he treated by a particular physician selected by the employer or insurance carrier, if the injured employee desires some other physician. I maintain that an injured employee has the right to select a physician of his own choosing. The statute (Ark. Stat. Ann. § 81-3111 [Repl. 1960]) says: “The employer shall promptly provide for an injured employee such medical, surgical, hospital, and nursing service ... as may he necessary ...” The important word in the statute is “provide”: that means to “supply,” or to “furnish.” The statute does not deprive the injured employee of the great American free enterprise right to select the doctor who is to treat him. The relationship of physician and patient is a personal one; and our Workmen’s Compensation Statute was not designed to usher in any phase of “state medicine.” I realize that this concurrence may be dicta in the present case; but nevertheless I think it wise to state my views on this matter at this time.