Switch back to WCC classic look

WorkCompCentral – Workers' Compensation Education, Courses, News and Information

Call or email us anytime
(805) 484-0333
Search Guide
Today is Saturday, September 19, 2020 -

Industry Insights

Salem: Board Opinion Allows MIRR Evaluation to Proceed

  • State: Tennessee
  • -  231 views
  • -  0 shares

When a party requests an evaluation from the state Medical Impairment Rating Registry, the opposing party can’t object on the basis that the party manufactured a dispute over the rating by hiring an expert to perform a records review.

Jane Salem

Jane Salem

The Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board announced this legal principle in Gray v. Conagra Foods Packaged Foods Co. Inc. 

In the case, Katie Gray suffered a work-related injury to her finger and developed complications in her hand. She was later diagnosed with complex regional pain syndrome.

The authorized treating physician assigned a permanent medical impairment rating. Conagra hired a physician to review medical records and give an opinion on the rating.

Afterward, because the opinions differed, Conagra requested an impairment evaluation through the Medical Impairment Rating Registry, also known as the MIRR. Gray moved to quash the request, contending that a medical records review is an insufficient basis to support the existence of a dispute about the rating.

The trial court denied the employee’s motion, and the board affirmed in a memo opinion.

The three-judge board reminded that the Tennessee Supreme Court’s Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel addressed a similar factual scenario in Williams v. Ajax Turner Co.

In Williams, the employee contended that the employer “created a dispute” by hiring an independent medical examiner. The employee argued that only an injured worker, not an employer, should be able to seek a second opinion on the issue of impairment. The panel disagreed, explaining that the statute allows “either party” to request a MIRR evaluation when a dispute exists as to the degree of medical impairment.

Writing for the board, Presiding Judge Timothy Conner held that “[n]othing in the statute or regulations prevents either party from obtaining a second opinion on the issue of permanent medical impairment. Likewise, nothing in the statute or regulations prohibits either party from seeking that opinion based on a review of medical records.”

He added, “If there are broader policy considerations impacting the construction or application of the MIRR program, those concerns should be presented to the General Assembly.”

The opinion reviewed an interlocutory order, so it can’t be appealed.

Jane Salem is a staff attorney in the Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims, Nashville. This entry is republished with permission from the court's blog.

No Comments

Log in to post a comment

Close


Do not post libelous remarks. You are solely responsible for the postings you input. By posting here you agree to hold harmless and indemnify WorkCompCentral for any damages and actions your post may cause.

Featured Video

Upcoming Events

  • Sep 22, 2020

    NCSI 2020 Webinar Series

    Since our in-person meeting has been canceled we have shifted to a webinar series that will includ …

  • Sep 22-23, 2020

    The Path Forward: An Out Fron

    COVID-19 has forced the industry to make major adjustments and adaptations to the way we operate, …

  • Sep 23, 2020

    National Review Roundtable wit

    The National Association of Independent Review Organizations invites you to join us for a FREE web …

Workers' Compensation Events

Social Media Links


WorkCompCentral Workers' Compensation
News and Education
4081 Mission Oaks Blvd
Camarillo, CA 93012
(805) 484-0333