OPINION
{1} IMC Kalium Carlsbad Potash Company and Crawford & Company (“Employer”) appeal from an opinion of the Court of Appeals, see Banks v. IMC Kalium Carlsbad Potash Co.,
I
{2} Worker was employed by Employer from 1974 to 1998. For most of that time she worked underground in the Carlsbad potash mine. She performed several jobs while working underground in the mine, which exposed her to diesel exhaust fumes and nitrate smoke created by the mining operations. During her employment by Employer, she began developing respiratory problems. In 1994, Worker’s treating physician, Dr. Lisa Perkowski, advised Worker to try not to work underground because her health was deteriorating. Worker, however, continued to work in the mine. She stopped working underground for most of 1996 and 1997. Her health continued to deteriorate. Eventually she was unable to work.
{3} Dr. Perkowski referred her to several specialists, including Dr. Gerald Ross at the Environmental Health Center in Dallas, who saw Worker in February 1998. Worker filed a claim for benefits under the Act with the Workers’ Compensation Administration (“Administration”) on July 17,1998, based on exposure to chemicals while working in the mine. Worker named Dr. Ross as her treating physician in the complaint. After a period of evaluation, Dr. Ross wrote a medical report in February 1999, that diagnosed Worker with “[wjork-related chemical exposures,” resulting in or aggravating Worker’s chronic cough, asthma, reactive airway dysfunction syndrome (“RADS”), allergic rhino-sinusitis, toxic encephalopathy, food sensitivities, hypertension, and reactive anxiety and depression.
{4} On February 22, 2000, Employer moved to exclude the medical report, testimony by Dr. Ross, and the testing upon which he relied. In moving to exclude the report, testimony and testing, Employer acknowledged that Worker “has had several health problems.” Employer argued, however, that the diagnosis Dr. Ross provided relied upon “scientifically discredited methodology” and was not admissible under Rule 11-702 and Daubert/Alberico. Rule 11-702, which governs the admissibility of expert testimony, states “[i]f scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.” In Alberico, we followed Daubert and construed 11-702 as requiring that “[wjhen scientific evidence is employed as a means of obtaining or analyzing data, the trial court must determine whether the scientific technique” is reliable and relevant to assist the trier of fact. Alberico,
{5} Employer’s motion noted that many courts in this country have rejected the scientific validity of RADS, otherwise known as multiple chemical sensitivity, under a variety of evidentiary standards. Employer challenged the methodology of the report, contending Dr. Ross had relied on “untestable hypotheses” under which differing results
{6} Worker argued that Daubert/Alberico did not apply to Administration proceedings. Worker argued that the Act authorizes a health care provider to provide expert testimony in a workers compensation proceeding and thus no other standard need be met. She relied on the Legislature’s intent, expressed in Section 52-l-28(B), which provides:
In all cases where the employer or his [or her] insurance carrier deny that an alleged disability is a natural and direct result of the accident, the worker must establish that causal connection as a probability by expert testimony of a health care provider, as defined in [NMSA 1978, § 52-4-1 (1993) ], testifying within the area of his [or her] expertise.
She cited precedent from the Court of Appeals, such as Coslett v. Third St. Grocery,
{7} The WCJ granted Employer’s motion and excluded the evidence Employer had challenged. Employer then moved for summary judgment, and the WCJ also granted that motion. Worker appealed to the Court of Appeals, pursuant to NMSA 1978, § 52-5-8(A) (1989).
{8} The Court of Appeals agreed with Worker that Daubert/Alberico did not apply. Banks,
{9} On rehearing, the court addressed Employer’s contention that this Court’s decision in Madrid v. University of California,
{10} Employer petitioned for certiorari under Rule 12-502 NMRA 2003. Employer contended that the opinion of the Court of Appeals was contrary not only to Madrid and Rule 11-702 but also to Administration regulations. Employer noted that this Court had not decided whether Daubert/Alberico applies to the statutory requirement in Section 52-l-18(B) that Worker prove causation by expert testimony of a health care provider. We granted certiorari on the issues raised in the petition. We begin with Employer’s contention that the opinion is contrary to Madrid.
II
{11} The determination of the questions on appeal to this Court is a matter of law and therefore our review is de novo. State v. Torres,
A
{12} In Madrid, we interpreted Section 52-l-28(B) at a time when that section required a worker to provide “expert medical testimony” regarding proof of causation. See 1959 N.M. Laws, ch. 67, § 7. We held that expert medical testimony did not limit the qualifications of such an expert to licensed physicians. Madrid,
{13} We rejected the logic that “the [Legislature [had] enough confidence in the competence of non-physician health care providers ... to authorize treatment by them to injured compensation claimants, but to have intended that those same health care providers be prohibited from testifying concerning the cause of an injury which lies squarely within the areas of their competency.” Madrid,
{14} The Court of Appeals has observed that this amending language and the timing of the amendment indicates that “the purpose of the amendment was to expand the admissibility of expert testimony regarding causation, not to restrict it.” Third St. Grocery,
{15} We turn next to the regulations the Administration has adopted to govern proceedings before a WCJ. We first address Employer’s argument that the Court of Appeals “arbitrarily” excluded Rule 11-702 from workers’ compensation proceedings, while the regulations expressly include the rule. Then we address the applicability of Daubert/Alberico to proceedings before a WCJ.
B
{16} The regulation on which Employer relies, 11.4.4.12(0) NMAC (Feb. 15, 1997), amended a previous regulation entitled “Rules Governing Evidence,” which provided that “[e]xcept where provided otherwise in these Rules, the Rules of Evidence for the District Courts of the State of New Mexico shall apply.” WCA Rule 92.4.1 (June 29, 1989, repealed 1996). The current regulation adopts the Rules of Evidence for the district courts in workers’ compensation hearings, “[u]nless otherwise stated or necessarily implied in the preceding rules.” 11.4.4.12(0) NMAC. The “preceding rules” implemented the Act. See 11.4.4.3 NMAC (June 1, 1996). Because the rales implement the Act, they must be read in pari materia with Section 52-l-28(B), which requires a worker to establish causation through the testimony of a qualified “health care provider.”
{17} Employer interprets Daubert/Alberico as an integral part of Rule 11-702, rather than “a separate, different, or supplemental standard for admissibility of scientific evidence.” Employer suggests that the reference to expert testimony in Section 52-1-28(B), as well as the reference to the Rules of Evidence in the regulations, supports a conclusion that Daubert/Alberico applies.
{18} We recognize that other jurisdictions have addressed whether the requirements of Daubert or its precursor, Frye v. United States,
{19} In Torres,
{20} In context, “health care provider” is a phrase with a very specific meaning. The Act provides an extensive definition of health care provider, including those in professions whose expertise would not necessarily require “scientific knowledge.” NMSA 1978, § 52-4-l(B through O) (1993) (including, for example, certified or licensed nurse-midwives,
{21} The broad statutory definition of health care provider, and our holding in Torres, are consistent with Fuyat,
{22} We agree with the Court of Appeals that the reasoning in Fuyat applies to this case. Dr. Ross is Worker’s treating health care provider and therefore qualified to testify under Section 52-l-28(B). A treating-physician is uniquely qualified to give an opinion about his or her diagnosis of a patient and the admissibility of such testimony should be given due deference. As one federal court explained, “[t]he rationale for giving greater weight to a treating physician’s opinion is that he [or she] is employed to cure and has a greater opportunity to know and observe his [or her] patient.... ” Holbrook v. Lykes Bros. S.S. Co.,
{23} After comparing the language in the previous version, which instructed “except where provided otherwise,” with the current version, “unless otherwise stated or necessarily implied in the preceding rules,” we conclude that the regulations permit a more flexible interpretation of the evidentiary standards in workers’ compensation proceedings than the one contemplated by the previous regulation. See Martinez v. Research Park, Inc.,
C
{24} Under Section 52-l-28(B), a worker must establish causation through the testimony of a health care provider. The Court of Appeals summarized the statutory definition of health care provider as “a person who is licensed, certified or registered as a provider of certain specified medical services.” Banks,
{25} An employer has the right to make the initial health care provider selection or to let the worker do so. NMSA 1978, § 52-1-49(B) (1990). This selection is unchallengeable for the first sixty days of treatment, at which time the party that did not make the initial selection may select a different health care provider. Section 52-1-49(0). The employer may object to the worker’s selection; the worker may object to the employer’s choice. Section 52-l-49(D).
{26} When a party objects to the selection of a health care provider, it must file a request with a WCJ that states an objection pursuant to the regulations. Section 52-1-49(E). A party challenging the selection of a health care provider must prove that the health care provider is “not providing the [wjorker reasonable and necessary medical care.” 11.4.4.11(L) NMAC (June 1, 1996); accord Section 52-l-49(F). The WCJ then will either grant or deny the request. If the request is granted, the WCJ will select the health care provider requested by the complaining party, or will make an independent selection. Section 51-1-49(F).
{27} In the event of a dispute “concerning any medical issue,” the Act provides for an independent medical examination. See § 52-1-51. In the event the worker selects a new health care provider pursuant to Section 52-1-49(C), the employer is entitled to periodic examinations by the health care provider previously chosen. See § 52-l-51(D).
{28} The Act limits testimony at the compensation hearing to a treating physician or a health care provider who has provided an independent medical examination pursuant to the Act. See § 52-l~51(C). The regulations limit the presentation of a health care provider’s testimony. A regulation excludes a health care provider from giving live testimony at a proceeding, 11.4.4.12(F)(1), but permits the admission of the deposition itself at the proceeding in lieu of the health care provider’s live testimony, 11.4.4.12(G)(4) NMAC. This rule expressly deviates from the general rule of civil procedure that does not allow deposition testimony to be directly read into evidence, see Rule 1-032 NMRA 2003; Arenivas v. Cont’l Oil Co.,
{29} The Act and the regulations limit the evidence a worker may present in support of the burden imposed by Section 52-l-28(B). In a district court proceeding, a plaintiff wishing to establish causation of injury presumably would be able to offer the testimony of several expert witnesses; and if one or more experts were excluded under Daubert, a plaintiff would not necessarily lack evidentiary support for his or her position. In this case, however, because of the restrictions on who may provide expert testimony, when the WCJ excluded the medical report and testimony, Worker’s claim lacked necessary evidentiary support. That result appears inconsistent
{30} If an employer fails to object to the worker’s choice of health care provider during the diagnosis stage, that employer ought not be able subsequently to exclude the provider’s testimony as unreliable, especially not at a time when the worker would be left without alternatives to establish causation of his or her injury. If an employer is not satisfied with a worker’s choice of health care provider, it should make that objection known earlier, pursuant to Section 52-1-49. As the Court of Appeals suggested, subsequent exclusion of the health care provider’s testimony under Rule 11-702 seems an inappropriate alternative. Banks,
{31} We hold that Daubert/Alberico is not applicable to Employer in challenging Worker’s proof pursuant to Section 52-1-28. The Legislature has created a selection process in which the presence of a treating physician or other health care provider at the adjudication stage of a worker’s claim is required. A determination of whether the health care provider’s testimony meets Daubert/Alberico would be overly burdensome for workers as well as the process the Legislature created and is inconsistent with the Legislature’s intent. The testimony of Worker’s health care provider should not have been excluded.
D
{32} In replacing the “general acceptance” test adopted from Frye,
{33} Employer raises a concern that without the safeguard of the Daubert/Alberico standard all WCJ proceedings will be “forced to accept unreliable and unscientific testimony.” We disagree. By rejecting Daubert/Alberico as a bar to the admissibility of the medical report, the testimony of Dr. Ross and the testing on which he relied, we do not intend to conclude that any of the three must be taken as true. We hold only that they should have been considered, rather than excluded.
{34} The WCJ, as trier of fact, ultimately can accept or reject the evidence once admitted. See Fuyat,
{35} Employer notes that we have adopted and applied an uncontradicted medical evidence rule in New Mexico in reviewing a worker’s proof of causation. See Hernandez v. Mead Foods, Inc.
“The uncontradicted medical evidence rule ... is an exception to the general rule that a trial court can accept or reject expert opinion as it sees fit. The rule is based on NMSA 1978, [§] 52-l-28(B), which requires the worker to prove causal connection between disability and accident as a medical probability by expert medical testimony. Because the statute requires a certain type of proof, uncontradicted evidence in the form of that type of proof is binding on the trial court.”
Id. at 70,
{36} That is not our only reason for believing Employer’s policy argument is not well-founded. An administration proceeding is conducted before and decided by a WCJ, acting without a jury. In State v. Anderson,
{37} One federal court has recognized in the context of the federal Black Lung Benefits Act, that “rigorous exclusionary rules for the administration of evidence make little sense in hearings before an administrative agency where the [Administrative Law Judge] ALJ acts as both judge and factfinder. When the judge is also factfinder, he [or she] is equally exposed to evidence whether he [or she] admits it or excludes it.” United States Steel Mining Co. v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs,
{38} We do not mean to suggest that Daubert/Alberico is not applicable whenever a judge is the trier of fact. See State v. Campos,
Ill
{39} For these reasons, we affirm the Court of Appeals. Dr. Ross offered testimony regarding his diagnosis of the causal connection between Worker’s current symptoms and her previous exposure to chemicals in the mine. His conclusions were made pursuant to his treatment, which was within his training and experience. The WCJ may consider Employer’s arguments in evaluating the strength of Worker’s proof. The report, testimony, and testing should be considered on remand.
{40} IT IS SO ORDERED.
Notes
. The Occupational Disease Disablement Law has a similar provision, NMSA 1978, § 52-3-32 (1989), which the parties have not attempted to distinguish from Section 52-l~28(B). Therefore, while we refer to Section 52-l-28(B) throughout this opinion, our analysis applies to Section 52-3-32 as well. See Banks,
. Employer pointed out to the Court of Appeals that Dr. Ross was not approved as a health care provider by the Administration Director. This assertion was not preserved with the Court of Appeals, and therefore the court did not determine the issue in its opinion. Id. ¶ 26.