There is a new AP case out that may be of some help in cases where the designated doctor is not properly appointed (not qualified, for example). The case involves when you have a DD improperly appointed and there is no expedited CCH so the exam takes place. If the parties get set for a hearing on MMI/IR/extent and the issue of proper appointment can be added because it was a DD for a (e.g.) spinal cord injury and the DD was a chiropractor. An attorney can ask for a pre-hearing conference, because what's the point of having a DD opinion at the CCH if he's not qualified? Previously, policy was indeterminate at best. A judge could rule simultaneously on the proper appointment issue and against the party on the extent of injury issue, which would essentially moot the proper appointment issue because the purpose of the extent of injury exam is already resolved. But this decision that came out last week stating that the parties have a right to the benefit of a properly appointed/qualified DD. prior to a hearing.
Comments