NWCDN Members regularly post articles and summary judgements in workers’ compensations law in your state.
Select a state from the dropdown menu below to scroll through the state specific archives for updates and opinions on various workers’ compensation laws in your state.
Contact information for NWCDN members is also located on the state specific links in the event you have additional questions or your company is seeking a workers’ compensation lawyer in your state.
The Oklahoma Supreme
Court has accepted certiorari in a case in which the Workers' Compensation
Commission and the Court of Civil Appeals (COCA) differ in the interpretation
of the statute that governs the appointment of a new treating physician (Form
A). The case is SSM Health Care Corp. v. Monica Goodwin, Supreme
Court # 121,192.
The claimant suffered a
compensable injury to several parts of her body when a patient suffered a
psychotic episode and became combative. The employer admitted an injury to the
neck and shoulder. The ALJ ordered a change of physician to a shoulder specialist
who does not treat necks and later granted a Form A to send the injured worker
to a neck specialist. The employer objected and appealed. The appointment of
an additional Form A doctor was affirmed by the WC Commission.
The issue is the
interpretation of 85A O.S. Sec. 56(B). COCA, in a 2-1 decision, ruled that the
statute allows only one change of treating physician per case no matter how
many parts of the body are injured.
The dissenting COCA
judge wrote:
...."The Statute
does not preclude the Commission from ordering more than one change of treating
physician or otherwise limit how many changes may occur. Accordingly, I would
find that Sec. 56(B) provides one change of treating physician at the claimant's
request and that subsequent changes are allowed at the ALJ's
discretion...."
The
dissenting opinion implies that allowing more one change of physician per case
is reasonable, and does not violate legislative intent.
The Supreme Court will
decide the issue.