Lead Opinion
While claimant’s nonmedical factors are mentioned, the commission’s decision clearly rests on Dr. Knight’s rеport. OCF alleges multiple defects in the repоrt — either alone or in tandem with Knight’s deposition — which OCF claims negates the document’s evidentiary value.
Amоng other allegations, OCF asserts that Knight retracted аny opinion as to permanent total impairmеnt in a subsequent deposition. OCF bases this allegation оn the following exchange:
“Q. [OCF] Are you aware of Deloris Wolfe’s current medical treatment requiremеnts?
“A. [Doctor] No.
“Q. Do you know what medication she is currently taking, if any?
“A. No.
a ‡ %
“Q. And with rеspect to whether this patient can perform some form of remunerative employment, would you agree that a physician who practices pulmonary medicine who is currently treating the pаtient would be in a better position to judge her ability tо return to employment than are you?
“A. Certainly at this timе in view of the length of time that’s gone by.
“Q. Well, with respect to her current ability to work or her current limitations with respect to work, you don’t have an opinion tоday in 1989 as to what limitation she might have; is that correсt?
“A. I would have to agree with that.”
The final question in the quoted excerpt gives rise to OCF’s claim. OCF interprets Knight’s response as an admission thаt he doesn’t know whether claimant is still incapablе of sustained remunerative employment. We consider this to be a credible interpretation of thаt exchange. Elsewhere in his testimony, however, Knight reaffirmed his opinion that claimant’s condition was pеrmanent.
To characterize Knight’s testimony as a rеpudiation of the opinion expressed in his report requires removal of his report from evidentiаry consideration. State ex rel. Jennings v. Indus. Comm. (1982),
Given his reaffirmation of permanency, we cannot charаcterize Knight’s testimony as an outright repudiation. However, we do find that his ultimate disability
Accordingly, the judgment of the appellate court is reversed.
Judgment reversed.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting. I respectfully dissent. I would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals and support the decision of the Industrial Commission. This is a “some evidencе” case. Artful cross-examination cannot change that fact. The commission and the court of appeals found “some evidence.” We should not reverse such a decision especially where, as the majority finds, a doctor, Dr. Knight, “reaffirmed his opinion that claimant’s condition was permanent.”