 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hafner v. Beck11/9/1995
ualifications and admissibility of their opinions have been stretched considerably, we have not yet reached the point when experts can dictate the law.
Finally, Hafner asserts that a duty should be recognized here because, unlike an IME performed under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 35, 16 A.R.S., or Ariz. Admin. Code R20-5-114, Rules of Procedure for Worker's Compensation Hearings, Beck conducted the IME in a nonjudicial and nonadversarial setting pursuant to A.R.S. ยง 23-1026. An exam conducted under that statute, according to Hafner, is simply "a method for the carrier to determine and direct an appropriate course of treatment," carrying with it a duty of good faith and fair dealing owed by the carrier, and its selected IME practitioner, to the injured employee/claimant. Although Hafner characterizes her relationship with the Fund as one of insured/insurer, the precise nature of that relationship is neither material nor controlling to our analysis and Conclusion. The lack of duty Beck owed Hafner, based on their limited relationship, "is not predicated on an adversarial interest." Wilson v. Winsett, 828 S.W.2d 231, 232 (Tex. Ct. App. 1992).
Hafner had her own treating doctors and did not submit to Beck's evaluation for purposes of treatment or medical advice, but only because she was required to do so as part of the workers' compensation claims process. Even assuming that Beck's conduct fell below the standard of care for psychologists, it was a breach of duty owed to the Fund, not to Hafner.
Affirmed.
JOHN PELANDER, Judge
CONCURRING:
JOSEPH M. LIVERMORE, Presiding Judge
LLOYD FERNANDEZ, Judge
Page 1 2 3 4 Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|