Court Opinion

ID: 9797813
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:29:53.776641+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:57:42.564349
License: Public Domain

GOLDEN, J.,
concurring, in which VOIGT, J. joins.
[T23] While I concur in the result, I write separately because I differ with the majority opinion regarding the statutes at issue and their application. I also disagree with the factual context applied by the majority opinion. An independent medical examination as contemplated under § 27-14-604 never occurred in this case, thus making § 604 inapplicable to these facts.
[124] The Division argues that § 27-14-405 limits the responsibility of the Division under these circumstances to two physical examinations, leading the majority opinion to discuss several sections of Article 4 of the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act. The Division is confusing the applicable statutes. Section 405 only applies to the initial determination of an impairment rating. The circumstances at issue in this case arise within the context of a contested case hearing. Section 405 simply has no application to proceedings in a contested case.
[125] Specifically, this appeal concerns the payment for a physician's services that were rendered as part of a contested case hearing. Article 6 of the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act governs the procedures for a contested case hearing. In determining who should bear the specific expense at issue in this appeal, two separate statutory see-tions are pertinent. The first section is § 27-14-602(d) and accompanying rule.1 This section provides generally for the appointment of an attorney and provides for the payment of the fees of an appointed attorney under certain cireumstances. The accompanying rule allows for the payment of certain costs as well.
[126] The second statutory section pertinent to this appeal is § 27-14-604 that reads:
§ 27-14-604. Examination by impartial health care provider; costs; report by nonresident provider.
(a) In any contested proceeding, the hearing examiner may appoint a duly qualified impartial health care provider to examine the employee and give testimony. The fee for the service shall be as ordered by the hearing examiner, with mileage allowance as is allowed to other witnesses to be assessed as costs and paid as other witness fees are paid. The employer or employee may, at his own expense, also designate a qualified health care provider who may be present at the examination of the employee and give testimony at later hearings.
(b) If the employer and employee stipulate to an examination of the employee by a nonresident, qualified health care provider designated by the hearing examiner, and that the report of the health care provider as to his examination shall be admitted in evidence, the hearing examiner may order payment of the reasonable cost and expense of the employee's attendance upon the health care provider, the provider's fee for examination of the employee and his report thereon. The fees and costs shall be charged in the same manner as other costs and witness fees. The nonresident health care provider shall report in writing to the hearing examiner and include answers to questions asked by the hearing examiner relative to the employee's condition.
Wyo. Stat, Ann. § 27-14-604 (LexisNexis 2001).
[127] Section 604 governs the procedure for an independent medical examination. It very specifically provides for the mechanism by which an independent medical examination for purposes of the contested case hearing can be obtained and how such examination should be conducted. The procedure is under the control of the hearing officer. Itis the hearing officer who appoints "an impartial health care provider." The section states *477that the expenses for the examination are to be as ordered by the hearing examiner and "paid as other witness fees are paid." Most importantly for the instant appeal, it states that, should the parties want a physician of their personal choosing present at the independent medical examination, they may do so at their own expense.
[128] It seems Serda was aware of this provision. It is mentioned in the "Order Setting Review Conference," set out in the majority opinion, that Serda, through her attorney, wanted to reach an agreement with the attorney for the Division for an IME, presumably pursuant to § 604. This comment in the Order only reflects discussions between the parties. The record does not reflect that any request or motion for an IME was ever made or ruled on by the hearing examiner. Instead, Serda consulted a physician of her own choosing and underwent a private physical examination.
[129] The order of the commission under review states that the medical examination at issue "was conducted apparently at the request of the Employee/Claimant" and that "Itlhe Employee/Claimant did not seek an additional Impairment Rating under the provisions of W.S. § 27-14-604." There is nothing in the record to dispute these findings. In fact, in her "Response to Objection to Application for Award of Attorney Fees and Payment of Expenses," Serda, through her attorney, admitted that the medical examination was done at her request by "a physician of her own choosing." Thus, the examination was a private examination that in no way complied with the IME procedure contemplated by § 604.2
[130] The factual issue before the court, then, involves the responsibility for payment of a private medical examination. The problem with allowing payment for a private medical examination under the guise of costs is that the statutes reflect a scheme whereby a party requesting a private medical examination should be responsible for the payment therefor. The only time the hearing officer is specifically provided with authority to direct payment of a medical examination is if the examination is an independent examination under § 604, In order to determine legislative intent, statutes must be read in pari materia, In re WJH, 2001 WY 54, ¶ 16, 24 P.3d 1147, ¶ 16 (Wyo.2001) ("in ascertaining the meaning of a given law, we consider and construe in harmony all statutes relating to the same subject or having the same general purpose"), and specific statutes control over general statutes on the same subject. Thunderbasin Land, Livestock & Inv. Co. v. County of Laramie County, 5 P.3d 774, 782 (Wyo.2000) ("The specific statute controls over the general when they address the same subject.")
[131] Here, there is a very specific statute dealing with the issue of directing payment for medical examinations for contested case hearings. It states that the hearing officer has discretion to direct payment for an independent medical examination conducted by an impartial health care provider appointed by the hearing officer, but that the parties should bear the expenses of any private physicians they wish to employ. An administrative rule relating to attorney costs generally cannot override this specific statutory language.
[132] The facts are simply that, in the context of a contested case hearing, Serda employed a private physician to conduct a private physical examination. There is no statutory provision allowing for anyone other than Serda to pay for the expenses associated therewith, The order of the Commission is rightly affirmed.

. See paragraphs twelve and thirteen of the majority opinion for the text of the statute and the rule.

. The fact that Serda and her examining physician chose to refer to the medical examination as an IME is irrelevant to the question of whether the examination complied with the dictates of § 604, which it clearly did not.