Court Opinion

ID: 9782097
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 17:58:55.239201+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:34:47.728439
License: Public Domain

WATT, J.,
with whom EDMONDSON, V.C.J., joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
T1 I agree with the majority in its determination that the second sentence of 85 0.8. § 17(A)2)(A) allows other physicians besides the IME to offer rebuttal evidence. This seems to be a necessary finding because it would not otherwise allow Claimant to introduce evidence to rebut the presumption that the treating physician's report is correct. Thus, it could prevent Claimant from satisfying her mandatory burden of proof under 85 0.8. § 1.1 which provides the burden of proof is on the party requesting benefits or relief.
T2 I also agree that the statutory language in § 17(A)(2)(b), "within the range of opinions of the treating physician and the Independent Medical Examiner," should be severed because it usurps the court's jurisdiction to determine disability as required by § 17(A). However, I would additionally sever all of the statutory language in § 17(A)(2)(b) except the first and last sentences.
T8 Section 17(A)(2)(b) allows the IME to determine whether the treating doctor's evidence is "supported by objective medical evidence". If the IME finds it is so supported, he or she advises the court. However, if the IME finds it is not supported by objective medical evidence, the IME advises the court and also provides his or her own opinion. It directs that the court "shall not" consider the IME's report "unless the [IME] determines the opinion of the treating physician is not supported by objective medical evidence ...." [emphasis added].
T4 This subsection is objectionable for at least two reasons. It allows the Independent Medical Examiner (IME) to determine a legal issue, le., whether the treating physician's opinion is supported by objective medical evidence. This comes dangerously close to the standard of review by appellate courts on factual issues as first declared in Parks v. Norman Municipal Hospital, 1984 OK 53, 684 P.2d 548. It further puts the IME, not the court, ultimately in a position to decide which evidence the trial court can consider. This appears to me to elevate the status of the IME above that of the Claimant's and Employer's medical experts and to usurp the court's duty to determine disability. The trial court should be able to consider all of the evidence presented. Indeed, the definition of "objective medical evidence" in 85 § 3(17) adopts the criteria of Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which provides that an expert may testify as to scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge if it "will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue ...." [emphasis added]. Section 17(A)@)(b) does more than "assist" the court. Rather, it allows the IME to dictate to the court which evidence to consider. I therefore dissent to the majority's approval of this statutory language which invades the court's independence.