Court of Appeals decides the Eller case today

This is a case where the claimant lost on compensability (coverage) after a hearing. She appealed but lost at the Court of Appeals level. Eller asserted that, while there was no admission of liability, the Respondents provided medical care and the authorized treating provider determined she was at MMI(maximum medical improvement) and also rated her with an impairment. She then said that this determination was never attacked by the Respondents so by statute (section 8-42-107.2(2)(b), C.R.S. 2008) they are bound by it. Her view was that it was required by statute that Respondents seek a DIME(Division Independent Medical Evaluation)so because they did not the doctors opinion was binding even on the Administrative Law Judge. This even should have included compensability or causality. The Court disagreed and affirmed the loss by claimant. Respondents contested the claim so they had a right to contest the question of compensability at the hearing which is a threshold issue not a medical opinion. Here the lower judge decided the claimant was not very credible and the specific injury was not caused at work. The claimant then argued that the way the case was handled deprived him of a right to seek a DIME which could have led to a presumption the DIME opinion addressed causality. This was shot down. The one point that is unclear to me is whether the authorized doctor addressed the mechanism of injury such that it could be said to be a binding finding or determination as noted in the statute. The Court said the statute should mean that the doctor addressing MMI or impairment is not a finding on the question whether the injury was caused at work. But even if you say the doctor cannot address whether it happened at work he may have addressed the way the claimant was injured. Here the impairment perhaps was attributed to falling out of a chair at work by her doctor who provided the rating. Seems to me that Respondents medical witness was not an eyewitness. Yet Respondent's doctor concluded the claimant's injury was not caused by falling out of a chair. Not sure why this opinion was allowed over the authorized doctor but the facts are not fully set forth on that point. However the case says that when Respondents contest your claim they can take it to a hearing and win even if the authorized doctor is on your side. The case is an interesting read so for more complete details and the Court's reasoning click here.