News Currents

Okla. court says law can’t bar evidence in workers’ comp case

State senator vows effort to address issue

The Oklahoma Supreme Court invalidated a portion of a state law that prohibits medical evidence to be presented in a workers’ compensation case from a doctor hired by an injured worker. The co-chairman of the Oklahoma Senate Judiciary Committee said he will do everything possible to amend the law so that its effect will be that which legislators intended.

The court said in mid-July that it is unconstitutional to restrict the Workers’ Compensation Court from hearing all medical evidence relative to a workers’ comp claim.

“Absolutely, we will do everything we can to accomplish our goal with that legislation by changing the wording or do what is necessary to meet the constitutional issues that were brought up by this decision,” said Sen. James R. Williamson, R-Tulsa.

The law was approved at a special legislative session in 2005 and signed by Gov. Brad Henry. It represented a compromise after lawmakers could not agree during the regular session. Senate President Pro Tem Mike Morgan, D-Stillwater, and then-House Speaker Todd Hiett, R-Kellyville, were principal authors.

The provision in question allowed the employer to choose the “treating physician” in a workers’ comp case who would rate a worker’s percentage of disability. A second physician called an “independent medical examiner” also could be brought in to rate the injury.

The law allowed a judge to choose either recommendation or a percentage between the recommendations of the two doctors. Evidence from the personal doctor of a worker could not be presented, however.

Williamson joined a spokesman for The State Chamber, which represents scores of businesses across the state, in criticizing the opinion.

“It is disappointing that we seem to be fighting not only the trial lawyers but the Supreme Court in getting this pro-business workers’ comp reform passed and upheld,” Williamson said.

“Frustration,” was how Mike Seney, senior vice president for operations at the Oklahoma Chamber, characterized his feelings about the ruling. He said the bill was vetted by attorneys inside and outside the Legislature and seemed to be a good solution to what he said was a problem of plaintiff workers’ comp attorneys bringing into a case “doctors who are hired guns and give a higher rating that what is appropriate.”

Ivan Holmes, state Democratic chairman, hailed the ruling in a statement.

“The Oklahoma Legislature has no right to take away from an injured worker’s right to present evidence from their own medical expert regarding the extent of their injuries, so this was the only logical decision the Oklahoma Supreme Court could have made,” said Holmes.