Summary
In Ruiz, "we recognize[d] that medical conditions are dynamic and passage of time [could] render earlier opinions obsolete in certain cases."
Summary of this case from Ragucci v. Jo-Ann Fabrics Store, NoOpinion
BOARD No: 056147-902127
Filed: July 25, 1997
REVIEWING BOARD DECISION
(Judges McCarthy, Maze-Rothstein and Smith)
APPEARANCES
Joseph Collins, Esq., for the employee.
David W. Perry, Esq., for the insurer.
Robinson Ruiz injured his back on September 10, 1990 while lifting a compressor in the course of his employment as a sand blaster and painter. (Dec. 5.) The insurer accepted the case and paid weekly incapacity benefits under § 34 at the rate of $452.64 based on an average weekly wage of $678.95. (Dec. 3.) Thirty-seven months after the industrial injury, the insurer filed a complaint to modify the employee's weekly benefits. (Dec. 4.) Following a conference on the complaint to modify, an administrative judge denied the request and an appeal by the insurer brought the claim back to the same administrative judge for a full evidentiary hearing. (Dec. 4.) The hearing record includes the report of a § 11A examination together with a deposition of that doctor. No other medical reports or opinions were before the hearing judge although the employee filed a Motion to Authorize Additional Medical Testimony. (Dec. 3.)
The § 11A examination was conducted by Dr. W.J. Cater on May 10, 1994. (Dec. 5.) In his report, Dr. Cater opined that the employee had sustained a low back sprain which had resolved by the time of his examination. The doctor found no objective evidence of a disc herniation referenced in the employee's medical reports. Dr. Cater believed that the employee had reached a medical end result and could return to full duty work. (Dec. 6; Impartial report 3.) In the course of his deposition, Dr. Cater stated that he disagreed with the insurer's medical expert, Dr. Kermond, that the employee suffered from a 20% permanent partial impairment of his back. (Impartial Dep. 40.) The hearing judge determined that the impartial report was adequate (Dec. 3); thus no other medical evidence was allowed into evidence.
Based on the prima facie opinion of Dr. Cater, the judge concluded that the employee suffered from no physical limitations on his activities and was capable of returning to gainful employment as of May 10, 1994, the date of the impartial examination. The judge authorized the insurer to discontinue payment of weekly incapacity benefits as of that date. (Dec. 7-8.) We have the case on appeal by the employee.
One issue raised by the appellant in his brief is noteworthy. The employee contends that the judge failed to address ". . . the questions of bias of the impartial physician and his failure to integrate the medical records submitted to him." (Appellant's brief 3.) While we see no evidence of bias, the failure to use the medical reports to fix the parameters of the medical dispute raises some troubling questions.
The addition of § 11A to c. 152 drastically changed the method of resolving disputed medical issues. Prior to the 1991 enactment of § 11A, the disputants developed and presented medical opinions in support of their respective positions. This traditional adverserial technique, known in some quarters as the "dueling doctors" approach, was largely eliminated by G.L.c. 152, § 11A which states in pertinent part:
When any claim or complaint involving a dispute over medical issues is the subject of an appeal of a conference order pursuant to section ten A, the parties shall agree upon an impartial medical examiner from the roster to examiner the employee and submit such choice to the administrative judge assigned to the case within ten calendar days of filing the appeal, or said administrative judge shall appoint such examiner from the roster. (emphasis added).
Commonly, "dispute[s] over medical issues" involve the causal connection between the claimed medical disability and the industrial injury, the duration and extent of such disability, which includes questions of impairment, such as "whether the employee can lift objects over a certain weight, stand for prolonged periods, drive an automobile or operate mechanical equipment, or engage in other activities that would be required at work." Scheffler's Case, 419 Mass. 251, 257, n. 3 (1994).
Conflicting medical opinions only enter the hearing record after a finding by the administrative judge that the § 11A medical report is inadequate or the medical picture complex. A different situation obtains at conciliation and conference however. At these first two steps in the dispute resolution process the litigants must buttress their positions with medical reports. The employee seeking weekly incapacity benefits must provide a supportive medical opinion at conciliation and conference. Similarly, an insurer seeking to terminate or modify weekly benefits must provide appropriate medical reports.
In the case before us, the insurer had such a report when it embarked on its effort to reduce the employee's weekly incapacity benefits. The report which the insurer relied upon at conciliation and conference was from Dr. Kermond who opined that the employee suffered from a partial disability causally related to the industrial injury. Dr. Kermond felt that the employee was capable of modified work. He did not release him to return to his former work or to full work activity. For his part, Mr. Ruiz had reports from his attending physician which included the opinion that he continued to be totally medically disabled from work.
Significantly, the hearing judge's decision describes the insurer's effort as a "request to modify benefits" rather than totally discontinue them.
As pointed out above, a § 11A exam is appropriate when there is a dispute over medical issues. § 11A(2) provides that:
The report of the impartial examiner shall, where feasible, contain a determination of the following: (i) whether or not a disability exits, (ii) whether or not any such disability is total or partial and permanent or temporary in nature, and (iii) whether or not within a reasonable degree of medical certainty any such disability has as its major or predominant cause a personal injury arising out of and in the course of the employee's employment.
The dispute in the case at hand was only over subpart (ii): the extent of medical disability. The insurer's expert believed the medical disability was partial, whereas the employee's expert felt it to be total. Both medical experts thought the employee was medically disabled, and that the disability was causally related to the industrial injury; thus § 11A(2)(i) and (iii) were not in issue. Going into the hearing and before the § 11A impartial report was introduced, there was agreement on everything except the extent of Mr. Ruiz's medical disability.
We note in passing that the § 11A(2)(iii) assessment of causal relation must be read consistently with the state of the law governing the date of the injury. See Bourassa v. D.J. Reardon Co., 10 Mass. Workers' Comp. Rep. 213, 218 (1996). In this pre-1991 case governed by the "as is" doctrine of causation, it would not be "feasible" or suitable for the impartial physician to opine as to whether the industrial injury is a "major or predominant contributing cause" of the employee's disability.Id.
Although the § 11A examiner had these conflicting reports before him when he examined the employee, he nevertheless concluded, pursuant to § 11A(2)(i), that the employee suffered from no medical disability whatsoever! This opinion fell outside the boundaries of the "dispute over medical issues" in this case. While we recognize the Legislature's intention in § 11A(2) to "minimize situations where `dueling doctors' present conflicting medical evidence concerning . . . the degree of disability[,]"Scheffler, supra at 257, the outcome here went awry when the § 11A examiner offered an opinion which stepped outside the boundaries of the medical dispute framed earlier. The result was a widening of the medical conflict, not a narrowing of those issues. This is antithetical to a reasonable implementation of the statute. Accord, Franco v. Winston's Restaurant, 10 Mass. Workers' Comp. Rep. 645, 647-648 (1996) (issue of initial causal relation is not a subject for § 11A medical opinion in an accepted liability case). Our system of dispute resolution is out of focus — and will harm employees as well as insurers — if we allow it to broaden rather than narrow areas of disagreement and increase rather than decrease the unpredictably of outcome in a case.
We cannot tell from the record exactly what instructions were given to the § 11A medical examiner. If there is to be any stability and predictability at hearing, the § 11A examiner should be told exactly what is in dispute and his opinion, if it is to be found adequate, should fall somewhere within the extremes of the conflicting opinions. This said, we recognize that medical conditions are dynamic and passage of time will render earlier opinions obsolete in certain cases. Nevertheless, the "medical dispute" must be identified at some point in the dispute resolution process. We must assume that the legislature positioned the § 11A exam at step three of the dispute resolution process advisedly. By placing the exam later rather than earlier, the legislature left it to the parties to develop the nature and extent of the medical dispute.
452 CMR 1.14 (2) provides for the transmission of all approved medical records, any hypothetical fact patterns and any stipulations of fact to the impartial physician. (Emphasis added). This would be an appropriate way to define the extent of the medical dispute for the examiner.
In the case before us, there is no record suggestion that the medical condition had changed. The § 11A examiner based his disagreement with the two opposing doctors, whose reports he reviewed, largely on his differing view of the objective diagnostic testing, rather than the passage of time. (Impartial Deposition 33-36.)
There is nothing in the record which suggests that it was the hearing judge who selected the § 11A examiner. Neither can we tell what instructions were given to that physician. However, the record does disclose that the employee filed a Motion to Authorize Additional Medical Testimony. Given the circumstances of this case we think the judge erred as a matter of law when he failed to allow this Motion. In so holding, we are mindful of what the Supreme Judicial Court said in O'Brien's Case, 424 Mass. 16 (1996):
The reviewing board may also, "when appropriate, recommit a case before it to an administrative judge for further findings of fact." Certainly a decision by the administrative judge to foreclose further medical testimony where such testimony is necessary to present fairly the medical issues would represent grounds either for reversal or recommittal. In any case where these procedures still failed to offer a party an opportunity to present testimony necessary to present fairly the medical issues, there then might well be failure of due process as applied in that case.
Id. at 22-23. Where the § 11A opinion went in one direction andall the underlying medical reports and records went in another, and the employee requested permission to introduce additional medical evidence, the hearing judge should have opened the case. Because the judge failed to do so, we reverse his decision. As the judge who heard and decided this case no longer serves as such, we request the senior judge to assign the case to a different administrative judge. During the pendency of the new hearing, the earlier conference order denying termination of weekly benefits is reinstated. The insurer is directed to resume payment of weekly temporary total incapacity benefits as of the date of this decision.
So ordered.
__________________________ William A. McCarthy Administrative Law Judge
__________________________ Susan Maze-Rothstein Administrative Law Judge
Filed: July 25, 1997
Because this decision addresses serious questions of procedural due process, not raised by a party and on which the parties have had no opportunity to brief or argue, I cannot join in the majority opinion. For the following reasons, I concur in the recommittal order.
The issue addressed by the majority goes to the heart of procedural due process. Allegedly, the underlying medical records submitted to the impartial medical examiner are in concert on diagnosis and treatment; the impartial medical examiner presents a novel opinion on them. Under these circumstances, due process could require additional evidence. See O'Brien's Case, 424 Mass. 16, 22-23 (1996). From this perspective, which may not have been presented to the administrative judge, the risk of an erroneous determination appears high. The probable value of additional medical evidence may outweigh the governmental interest in streamlining the dispute resolution process. See Id. at 20; cf. Care and Protection of Robert, 408 Mass. 52, 59, 62-63 (1990) (procedural due process balancing test applied to child custody proceedings).
There are no mechanical tests for deciding when the denial of a motion for additional medical evidence is so arbitrary as to violate due process as applied. The answer must be found in the circumstances of each individual case, particularly in the reasons presented to the judge at the time the motion is heard. See Commonwealth v. Smith, 353 Mass. 442 (1968) (procedural due process in denial of motion for continuance), citing Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589. For that reason, the motion for additional medical evidence should: 1) clearly set forth the objections to the impartial medical examiner's report and, 2) by a request for judicial notice or exhibits or by affidavit or testimony, provide the judge with an offer of proof regarding the proferred evidence. See Lebrun v. Century Markets, 9 Mass. Workers' Comp. Rep. 692, 694, n. 4 (1995); Oliveira v. Scrub-A-Dub Wash Center, 10 Mass. Workers' Comp. Rep. 61, 62, n. 2 (1996); cf. Michelson v. Aronson, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 182, 189 (1976) (objections to master's report).
The employee objected to the report on the grounds of bias, but his motion did not contain an offer of proof. We cannot produce a stenographic record of the motion hearing held on October 3, 1994 so we cannot tell if an offer of proof was then made. However, no motion hearing exhibits are listed in the decision. From this record, we cannot tell whether the bias issue was squarely framed for the judge.
The motion did not clearly present the issue that the underlying medical reports sent to the impartial medical examiner limited the scope of the medical dispute. Nor do the appellate briefs filed with the reviewing board.
Section 11A(2) required the impartial medical examiner to comment on diagnosis: "The report of the impartial medical examiner shall, where feasible, contain a determination of the following: (i) whether or not a disability exists. . . ." G.L.c. 152, § 11A as amended by St. 1991, c. 398, § 30.
Department rules require that "[t]he decision of the administrative judge shall be based solely on the evidence introduced at the hearing." 452 CMR 1.11 (5) (emphasis supplied). "[A]s we have stated numerous times before, the conference and hearing are separate and distinct proceedings, and as the hearing is de novo, all evidence must be submitted anew." Cupid v. Epsco, Inc., 6 Mass. Workers' Comp. Rep. 110, 111 (1992), citingKaramanos v. J.K. Luncheonette, 5 Mass. Workers' Comp. 405, 407 (1991). Here, Dr. Kermond's report was never marked for identification or offered into evidence at the de novo hearing or deposition for which we have transcripts; nor was it attached to the motion for additional medical evidence.
"If bias, partiality, or the appearance of same is at issue, the judge must address it and make findings and a ruling in that regard." Martin v. Red Star Express Lines, 9 Mass. Workers' Comp. Rep. 670, 673 (1995). He did not do so here. The decision contains no findings about whether the impartial medical examiner evidenced bias in disbelieving the employee's subjective pain complaints. Because it fails to provide assurance that the correct law was applied to facts which could properly be found, recommittal is required.
The question of whether an employee is telling the truth about his subjective symptoms is ultimately for the judge to decide. Here the judge does not make an explicit finding on the employee's credibility; his decision appears internally inconsistent on this point. He adopts the impartial medical examiner's opinion that the employee had recovered. Yet, contrary to the doctor's opinion, the judge awards the medical treatment for chronic pain at Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital. I cannot decipher his rationale from his written decision. This inconsistency also constitutes grounds for recommittal.
An impartial medical examiner may properly comment that an employee's symptoms do not have an anatomical basis, are inconsistent with established medical science, or with examination findings, e.g. of no atrophy, or with test results. Beyond that, the issue of whether subjective complaints exist in reality is a nonmedical matter uniquely within the purview of the administrative judge. When confronted with this issue, counsel may ask the impartial medical examiner hypothetical questions assuming the complaints are real and assuming they are not, to provide the administrative judge with the expert information necessary to decide the case once he makes the credibility call.
The insurer contested the Spaulding treatment. (Dec. 2; Insurer Ex. 1; Tr. 27.)
The employee testified that he stopped physical therapy because he was going to Spaulding Rehabilitation. (Tr. 24.) He began treatment at Spaulding several weeks before the hearing. (Tr. 28-29.)
The impartial medical examiner testified: "I do not agree that he needs to go to Spaulding Rehab." (Dep. 41; see also Dep. 42.)
The judge found: "that the employee's treatment was reasonable and necessary as relating to his medical condition of back pain and lower extremity pain." (Dec. 7.)
Because this incomplete record is inadequate for proper appellate review, I agree that it is appropriate to recommit the case for further findings of fact. See G.L.c. 152, §§ 11B and 11C; and O'Brien, supra. At the de novo hearing necessitated by the absence of the original judge, the parties may assent to have the case heard by the new judge on all or any portion of the evidence previously taken. Nartowicz's Case, 334 Mass. 684 (1956). The parties will have the opportunity de novo to address the issue of additional medical evidence. In light of the circumstances of this case, it is my opinion that the judge should make specific findings on any such motion. See G.L.c. 152, § 11B and 452 CMR 1.12 (5)(a).
For these reasons, I concur in the majority's order.
________________________ Suzanne E.K. Smith Administrative Law Judge