New Study Details Arizona's Work Comp System
West News • October 15, 2004
According to a new study by the Workers Compensation Research Institute (WCRI), notable features of Arizona's workers' compensation system included a lifetime entitlement to medical and indemnity ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
Subject: RE: Dueling doctors in AZ
Posted On: October 20, 2004, 1:35 pm CDT
Posted By: Mark J. Nevils
Comment:
In response to Mr. Ganter's comment:
Perhaps AZ should adopt an impartial physician approach similar to the system adopted by the Massachusetts comp system in 1991. Both sides are allowed to submit evidence that is reviewed by a Department approved and appointed physician in that medical specialty and the Impartial also examines the claimant.
The opinion then becomes prima facie evidence at the next hearing, although there are circumstances where additional medical evidence may be introduced.
If you don't believe in a battle of the physicians because carriers always hire the same guns (as do claimants), then why not take the risk with an impartial? Don't be fooled by the misconceptoin that treating physicians are always the most honest and are able to answer questions about causation and extent of disability. The opportunity is alway present take the deposition of the impartial after the lay testimony. It would similar to the present situation where an AZ Department specialist reviews the information presented and rendered an independant opinion.
West News 
Subject: RE: Dueling doctors in AZ
Perhaps AZ should adopt an impartial physician approach similar to the system adopted by the Massachusetts comp system in 1991. Both sides are allowed to submit evidence that is reviewed by a Department approved and appointed physician in that medical specialty and the Impartial also examines the claimant.
The opinion then becomes prima facie evidence at the next hearing, although there are circumstances where additional medical evidence may be introduced.
If you don't believe in a battle of the physicians because carriers always hire the same guns (as do claimants), then why not take the risk with an impartial? Don't be fooled by the misconceptoin that treating physicians are always the most honest and are able to answer questions about causation and extent of disability. The opportunity is alway present take the deposition of the impartial after the lay testimony. It would similar to the present situation where an AZ Department specialist reviews the information presented and rendered an independant opinion.