Court Opinion

ID: 9690743
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 19:40:01.585408+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:03.526585
License: Public Domain

FINE, J.
¶ 30. 0concurring). I fully join in the Majority's decision, except: (1) its brief and, in my *515view, immaterial discussion of deference courts owe to administrative agencies, Majority, ¶ 20; and (2) its reference to the medical examination done by Wackenhut's physician as an "independent medical exam," Majority, ¶ 5.
¶ 31. First, in my view, this appeal has nothing to do with the deference we give to administrative determinations; the agency's flaw was in not making a proper determination, which is why we are remanding. So I see no reason to discuss or even mention the levels of deference.
¶ 32. Second, the phrase "independent medical exam" denotes independence. Of whom was Stephen Barron, M.D., independent? Certainly not Wackenhut. Indeed, the Majority specifically identifies Barron as "its doctor." Majority, ¶ 23.
¶ 33. I understand that defendants in cases where medical assessments are at issue refer to examinations done by their physicians as "independent" examinations, and courts frequently follow suit. Those examinations, however, are no more independent than are those performed at the behest of plaintiffs in those cases. A truly "independent medical examination" would be one, for example, done at the behest of a court, under Wis. Stat. Rube 907.06.
¶ 34. Based on the foregoing, I respectfully concur.