 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Orr v. City of Springfield9/23/2003
l laboratory, X-ray and all other technical examinations, diagnosis, prognosis, nature of disability, if any, and an estimate of the percentage of permanent partial disability, if any. An element or elements of a complete medical report may be met by the physician's records.
According to the Court in Lane, " report that is incomplete warrants disallowance of the doctor' s testimony about the excluded matter although the doctor is allowed to testify to matters included in the report." 903 S.W.2d at 61. The Court determined that the Commission did not err in excluding the physician's testimony because the report only contained the factors the physician considered in arriving at the conclusion that the claimant's disability was greater because of a previous emotional disorder, rather than the conclusion itself. Id. at 61-62.
Although Employer suggests Lane is dispositive, we consider Goodwin, when taken in conjunction with the other cases noted, to be dispositive and do not find it inapplicable simply because the case considered the pre-1990 section 287.210.3. As noted in Eubanks, the statue contemplates continuance as the remedy to a violation of the seven-day rule violation. 901 S.W.2d at 248. We agree with the Commission that the changes to section 287.210.3 "did not change the provisions with regard to the grounds for continuance."
Here, Employer failed to request a continuance, even after Employee indicated he would be amenable to a continuance and the ALJ indicated a continuance would be granted if one was requested. Employer chose to proceed with the hearing. Thus, as in Goodwin, Employer was not prejudiced because of the failure to ask for relief under the statute. 933 S.W.2d at 929. Therefore, we need not address whether sufficient evidence existed absent Dr. Robinson's testimony.
The award and decision of the Commission is affirmed.
|