Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubious
Kim,
Here is what the link states for Maryland (if that is where you live):
"Eight states still commonly make use of the Fourth Edition (published in 1993): Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, South Dakota, Texas, and West Virginia. Two states use the Third Edition, Revised (published in 1990): Colorado and Oregon. Connecticut does not stipulate which Edition of the Guides to use."
The 4th edition is likely much more favorable for you. If this link is correct, then have your attorney investigate this. If the 4th edition is the presumption of correctness and is the commonly used guide in your state, then it would seem that you could have the defense report thrown out as the 6th edition has not been labled to be the trier of fact (Mike, help me on this!) for WC injuries in your state.
|
Dubious -
Never knowing anything about WC (except how lucky I was not to have been injured at work) and no longer being actively engaged in the prectice of law, I can make only limited comments.
First, as a purely technical point, it's the hearing examiner rather than any particular edition of the
Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment that is the "trier of fact." But what the Book does is establish the standard under which claims are to be evaluated. Thus, if in fact, by law or regulation, a state has adopted the 4th edition as the standard, and the IME relies on another, the proper objection may be one of relevance, as in, "that's nice, but what application does it have to this proceeding?"
More importantly, if there are significant divergences, they should highlight to the trier of fact (or any reviewing panel) that the IME was pulling a fast one. That said, it's always better practice to raise and thereby "preserve" objections at the time of the hearing. And basing an expert opinion upon inapplicable standard is about as good as it gets when it comes time for impeachment of the witness. Especially if the claimant's attorney can get the IME to read from the edition which is in force in your jurisdiction, and acknowledge that the two standards diverge. At which point the blade is thrust by asking why s/he chose to use the inapplicable version.
Mike