HILL v. AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE, 423 P.3d 1119

Background

Robert Hill, a paramedic, injured his right shoulder at work in 2014, underwent surgery, reached MMI, and filed for permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits under the AWCA.
Employer submitted an evaluating physician report (Dr. Gillock) rating Hill at 4.2% whole-person impairment under the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition; Hill's doctor (Dr. Wilson) gave 8% under Sixth Edition and 31.8% under Fifth Edition.
At the PPD hearing Hill moved to exclude Employer's report under Daubert and challenged the constitutionality of AWCA provisions mandating use of the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition (arguing separation-of-powers, predetermination, non-delegation, due process, and access-to-courts violations).
The ALJ admitted Dr. Gillock's report, awarded 7% whole-person impairment ($7,913.50); the Workers' Compensation Commission affirmed and Hill appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court affirmed: ALJ did not err admitting the report; mandatory use of the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition (as the edition in force when the statute was enacted) is constitutional; the Court declined to resolve broader policy complaints about the shrinking "grand bargain."

Issues

Issue	Hill's Argument	American Medical Response / State's Argument	Held
Admissibility of employer's physician report (Daubert/relevance)	Gillock's report is irrelevant because AMA Guides address "impairment," not "disability," so it fails Federal Rule 702/Daubert	AWCA incorporates AMA Guides into statutory definition of "permanent disability"; expert testimony meeting §72(D)/FRE 702 is admissible	ALJ did not err; report admissible because statute ties "permanent disability" to AMA impairment ratings
Mandatory use of AMA Guides: separation-of-powers / predetermination	Legislature by mandating the Guides improperly restrains ALJs and predetermines adjudicative scientific facts	Legislature may set evidentiary standards; statute does not fix weight of any report or predetermine individual impairment	Use of the Guides as the evidentiary standard does not impermissibly intrude on adjudicative fact-finding
Non-delegation: reference to "current/most current edition"	Phrase delegates legislative power to AMA (or future editors), unconstitutional	Proper construction: refer to the edition current when statute was enacted (Sixth Edition), avoiding delegation	Statute construed to mean the edition effective at enactment (Sixth Edition); no unlawful delegation
Due process / access to courts / substantive due process / grand bargain	Use of the Guides deprived Hill of procedural (e.g., cross-examine authors) and substantive due process and denies access to justice; results in unfair, diminished awards	Hill had notice, a hearing, and opportunity to challenge medical evidence; uniform standards further legitimate state interests	Procedures satisfied due process; mandatory Guides rationally related to uniformity interest; policy complaints belong to Legislature

Key Cases Cited

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (sets admissibility factors for expert testimony under FRE 702)
Christian v. Gray, 65 P.3d 591 (Okla. 2003) (discussing Daubert factors in Oklahoma context)
Maxwell v. Sprint PCS, 369 P.3d 1079 (Okla. 2016) (addressing PPD definitions and limits on statutory deferral provisions)
Lee v. Bueno, 381 P.3d 736 (Okla. 2016) (legislature may set rules of evidence; limits on predetermination challenges)
Yocum v. Greenbriar Nursing Home, 130 P.3d 213 (Okla. 2005) (legislative provisions cannot predetermine adjudicative facts)
Conaghan v. Riverfield Country Day School, 163 P.3d 557 (Okla. 2007) (invalidating statutory provisions that unduly restrict judicial factfinding)
Protz v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd., 161 A.3d 827 (Pa. 2017) (analyzing non‑delegation and meaning of "most recent edition" language)
Cline v. Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice, 368 P.3d 1278 (Okla. 2016) (construing statutes to avoid unconstitutional delegation)
Torres v. Seaboard Foods, 373 P.3d 1057 (Okla. 2016) (substantive due process test for economic legislation; review of AWCA changes)
McCabe v. North Dakota Workers Comp. Bureau, 567 N.W.2d 201 (N.D. 1997) (construing "most current edition" to mean edition at time of enactment)
Sterling Refining Co. v. Walker, 25 P.2d 312 (Okla. 1933) (limits on legislature delegating powers; distinguished here)