The fact that an examining doctor does not list all of the allowed conditions in the header of his or her report does not necessarily mean that the report will be rejected by the Industrial Commission. To the contrary, the Tenth District Court of Appeals has now held that so long as the doctor indicated that he or she conducted an in depth review of the claimant’s relevant medical records and referenced all of the allowed conditions in the body of the report, then the doctor’s opinion could still be submitted for consideration relating to all of the allowed conditions in the claim. State ex rel. Hoffman v. Home Depot USA, Inc. (Ohio App. 10 Dist. 2013), No. 12AP-456. This is especially true if the doctor comments about symptoms attributed to all of the allowed conditions and directs his or her physical examination toward all of those conditions as well. The mere omission of some of the conditions in the header of the report should not serve as a fatal flaw in the report on issues such as continued treatment and maximum medical improvement (MMI).
In Hoffman, the claimant was denied temporary total disability benefits based upon a report submitted by Home Depot from its medical expert, Dr. Kurtz, finding him to have reached MMI. However, Dr. Kurtz’s initial report failed to list all of the allowed conditions in the claim. One month later, an addendum was submitted from Dr. Kurtz with the omitted conditions referenced. The doctor then indicated that even with these allowed conditions, Mr. Hoffman had reached MMI. The Industrial Commission accepted both of Dr. Kurtz’s reports and denied the benefits to Mr. Hoffman. Mr. Hoffman then filed a mandamus action arguing that the reports were faulty.
In rejecting Mr. Hoffman’s arguments, the Court noted that the body of the report is the key piece of evidence and not merely the header or information listed at the beginning of the report. Therefore, employers should always important to review reports to make sure that all conditions are discussed or considered as part of the examination and final conclusions. The Court also indicated that the use of an addendum can help fix an omission in the original report. This can be helpful so long as the addendum incorporates the examination findings from the original report.
However, employers should remember the following: When relying on an addendum, if the original examination findings were used in a prior report that was rejected by the Commission, those same physical findings from the earlier examination cannot be relied upon again as support for the addendum. The addendum cannot serve as a valid report if it incorporates the prior physical findings from an earlier report that was rejected.