This case involves a second appeal where the Petitioner’s request for hip replacement surgery, wage loss and permanent impairment was denied and dismissed with prejudice. The case involved a minor motor vehicle collision in a parking lot area. There was no damage to the Petitioner’s vehicle or the other vehicle – not even one scratch. The Petitioner had objected to the supplemental Medical Panel report arguing that the Panel was not qualified – essentially arguing Foye v. Labor Commission, 428 P.3d 26 (2018) stating the Medical Panel was not qualified to address the body parts or injuries at issue in Petitioner’s case. The Petitioner argued the Panel should have kept track of every hip surgery or treatment of hip cases each physician on the Panel had ultimately the Court disagreed. The Court pointed out that the Petitioner did not site to any requirement in the Rules or Statute for such record-keeping. Moreover, the Court determined that such requirements for stringent record-keeping is unreasonable. The Court also pointed out that physicians are prohibited under professional medical practice standards from performing work that is outside their area of expertise and scope of practice. As such, the Medical Panel was deemed to have the appropriate expertise to evaluate Petitioner’s injury.
The Court also took issue with the Petitioner making an occupational disease claim in her later pleadings which was not made at any earlier time and certainly not at the hearing in the case. The Petitioner’s claim for benefits was denied and dismissed with prejudice.