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.
It is a generally recognized fact that the statute and Division rules provide insurance carriers
an absolute right to an RME to address an opinion of a designated doctor. Tex. Lab. Code
Section 408.0041(f); 28 Tex. Admin. Code Section 126.5. However, in some cases, Hearing
Officers are declining to keep the record open to allow opportunity for the insurance carrier
to obtain a post‐DD RME to address a newly amended DD report (received in response to a
Hearing Officer’s request for clarification made in the course of an ongoing proceeding), on the
basis that the carrier “failed to use due diligence.”
For example, a recent Appeals Panel decision addressed a situation in which the self‐insured
had tried to obtain an RME addressing a DD’s amended report. The Hearing Officer has sent
the DD a letter of clarification, which led to the DD re‐examining the Claimant and amending
his prior report with respect to MMI/IR. The Hearing Officer gave the parties the opportunity
to respond to the DD’s report, and the self‐insured responded and requested additional time
so that an RME doctor could be obtained. The Hearing Officer denied the self‐insured’s request
to hold the record open for an RME report, citing that the self‐insured “failed to exercise due
diligence in seeking and obtaining an alternate IR although the self‐insured was fully aware
that the designated doctor had not rated the entire compensable injury prior to the CCH.” The
self‐insured appealed, contending it was denied procedural due process because it was not
granted additional time to obtain an RME doctor to opine on the DD’s amended report. The
Appeals Panel found the Hearing Officer did not abuse his/her discretion in denying the selfinsured’s
request to leave the record open to obtain the RME. Appeals Panel Decision (APD)
140722, decided June 5, 2014.
We could not find any “due diligence standard” in the rules or statute allowing for post‐DD
RMEs. We know, because we looked. Nevertheless, we must live with the cards we are dealt,
and are including this case in this month’s newsletter as a cautionary tale: in any case in which
you believe a post‐DD RME will be necessary or helpful to the carrier’s case, it’s best to
proceed with the request as soon as possible to ensure the carrier’s statutory right to an RME
is preserved. This is always good practice, regardless.