Higgins's Case, 948 N.E.2d 1228

Higgins, an employee, injured his back while working for Maynard's school department and filed a workers’ compensation claim.
Self-insurer requested Higgins submit to a § 45 medical examination by Dr. Shea; Higgins neither received nor was given a copy of that report.
An impartial physician was appointed under § 11A to examine Higgins and prepare a report on cause and extent of disability.
The self-insurer did not submit the § 45 report to the impartial physician for consideration and did not use it in defense.
Higgins sought to compel discovery of the § 45 report and to use it to cross-examine the impartial physician at deposition; the board ruled in Higgins’s favor on both.
The department remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Discovery of the §45 report is allowed?	Higgins: §20 and §30A require disclosure of all relevant medical reports; §45 report is discoverable.	Self-insurer: §20 does not apply to non-treatment §45 reports; no filing obligation unless used as basis for a decision.	Yes; §45 report is discoverable.
§20/§30A authorize furnishing copies of §45 reports to the employee?	Higgins: statutes broadly require access to medical reports; employee should receive copies.	Self-insurer: no direct obligation to furnish §45 reports unless used as basis for a division decision.	Yes; employee entitled to copies under §20 and §30A.
May the §45 report be used to cross-examine the impartial physician?	Higgins: report should be usable to test the impartial physician’s opinions.	Self-insurer: hearsay/fairness concerns; deposition should not rely on an inadmissible report.	Yes; the employee may cross-examine the impartial physician using the §45 report.
Impact of deposition on impartial physician’s opinions if §45 materials are supplemental	Higgins: deposition may incorporate additional data to refine opinions.	Self-insurer: deposition limited to cross-examination and independently admissible evidence.	Cross-examination permitted; deposition may influence the impartial physician’s opinion.

Anzalone v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 403 Mass. 119 (Mass. 1988) (right to copies of medical reports; context for discovery)
Halebian v. Berv, 457 Mass. 620 (Mass. 2010) (negative implication approach to statutory construction)
O’Brien’s Case, 424 Mass. 16 (Mass. 1996) (impartial physician akin to master; evidence interplay with records)
Murphy v. Commissioner of the Dep’t of Indus. Accs., 415 Mass. 218 (Mass. 1993) (discovery and admissibility in §11A context)
Scheffer’s Case, 419 Mass. 251 (Mass. 1994) (impartial examiner aims to minimize dueling medical testimony)
Ramacorti v. Boston Redevelopment Auth., 341 Mass. 377 (Mass. 1960) (consideration of fairness/necessity of admitting opposing expert opinions)