Court Opinion

ID: 9786005
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 23:44:18.201037+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:40.110336
License: Public Domain

ORME, Judge
(dissenting):
¶ 16 I respectfully disagree with my colleagues. The medical panel was provided with seventeen stipulated facts, and three specific questions were put to it. Four months after receiving its relatively simple charge, the medical panel submitted its 100 page report, which amounts to a life history of petitioner laden with irrelevant personal details.
¶ 17 The articulated basis for this peculiar foray is that the medical panel determined the stipulated facts were insufficient to properly answer the questions posed. Given the intention of the parties to have the matter resolved on stipulated facts, in conjunction only with “the deposition of Petitioner herein” and a medical record and report attached to the stipulation, once the medical panel ascertained it could not answer the three questions on the basis of the stipulated information, it should simply have so reported to the administrative law judge.
¶ 18 Once the judge informed the parties of this turn of events, they could then have considered supplementing the stipulation, undertaking additional discovery, proceeding to adjudication, etc. But for the medical panel to simply go its merry way-and for the administrative law judge to endorse this self-authorized adventure-was at odds with the expectation of the parties, as reflected in their stipulation.
¶ 19 I would remand the case to the Industrial Commission, with instructions to set aside the ineffectual stipulation and give petitioner an opportunity to pursue her claim in any alternative way properly available to her.