The following is language from the case of Knechtel v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (Marriott Corporation), 934 A.2d 697, which is a November, 2007 decision from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The case deals with the issue of allowing a treating physician to attend an "IME" or defense medical examination. From the Court....
_____________________
"Today the Court affirms by per curiam order the Commonwealth Court's construction regarding the legislature's enactment of 77 P.S. § 651(b), n1 allowing a claimant's healthcare provider to "participate" in the examination conducted by an employer's physician. In so doing, we affirm the court's holding that the legislature intended to afford the opposing expert a first-hand view of the examination process, through attendance and observation, but did not intend to permit such expert to engage in any active conduct which might disturb the examining physician. I write to express my opinion that nothing in our affirmance of the Commonwealth Court's opinion, limiting a healthcare provider to attending and observing an employer's physician's examination, should be seen as precluding such a provider from engaging in other passive, non-disruptive activity during the exam. Specifically, I believe that a workers' compensation judge retains the discretion to grant a claimant's reasonable request to take notes and/or audio or videotape the examination, so long as such activity will not interfere with an employer's physician's ability to conduct an examination."
______________________
This decision confirms what was widely understood and used by Claimant's attorneys-- that the Claimant or a representative of the Claimant (like their attorney or a paralegal from the firm) could attend a DME and video or audio tape the examination. This is a great tactic to use, especially with doctors who basically perform these types of examinations for a living and are beholden to the insurance industry for the economic survival.
No comments:
Post a Comment