## Facts

- George M. Laskey suffered a compensable work-related injury in 1984 while employed by S.D. Warren Company and received partial incapacity benefits.
- In 1998, S.D. Warren petitioned for review of incapacity, alleging Laskey’s work-related incapacity had ended.
- The Workers’ Compensation Board appointed Dr. Steward Russell as an independent medical examiner (IME) under 39-A M.R.S.A. § 312.
- Dr. Russell examined Laskey and reported that the 1984 work injury had resolved and that Laskey’s current incapacity was not causally related to the work injury.
- After receiving the report, Laskey objected to Dr. Russell’s neutrality and raised a conflict-of-interest concern based on Dr. Russell’s business relationships and income derived from insurer/employer-requested examinations.
- During discovery, Dr. Russell refused to answer interrogatories about those relationships; he was later deposed.
- In deposition, Dr. Russell testified that he earned substantial annual income from examinations, and that roughly 90–95% of his examinations were requested by employers and about 95% were for insurers/employers/defense counsel, with additional consulting relationships.
- The hearing officer disqualified Dr. Russell as an IME based on conflict of interest under § 312 and Board rules and denied S.D. Warren’s petition for review of incapacity.
- The Board declined to disturb the conflict ruling, and S.D. Warren appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Laskey’s objection to the IME, asserted after the IME report issued, was untimely.
2. Whether a hearing officer had authority to disqualify an IME in a pending case, or whether only the Board could do so.
3. Whether § 312 and the Board’s conflict rule allow disqualification for broader, non-case-specific conflicts arising from an examiner’s practice profile and relationships with insurers and employers.
4. Whether the hearing officer erred in denying the employer’s petition for review of incapacity after disqualifying the IME.

## Decision

- The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the hearing officer and the Workers’ Compensation Board.
- The court upheld the implicit finding that the employee’s conflict objection was raised within a reasonable time under the statutory and regulatory scheme.
- The court held that, in adjudicating an individual claim, a hearing officer may disqualify an appointed IME for conflict of interest without usurping the Board’s separate administrative authority to maintain the IME roster.
- The court approved interpreting § 312 and the Board rule to permit consideration of systemic conflicts bearing on independence, not limited to case-specific conflicts such as prior examinations of the same employee within 52 weeks.
- The court found no legal error in denying the employer’s petition for review of incapacity based on the remaining evidence after the IME’s disqualification.

## Legal Principles

- In workers’ compensation proceedings, a hearing officer deciding an individual case may determine whether an appointed IME is sufficiently independent and may disqualify the IME for conflict of interest consistent with § 312 and Board rules.
- Statutory and regulatory “independence” requirements for IMEs may encompass broader conflicts reflected by an examiner’s overall financial and professional ties to insurers, employers, or defense counsel, not only case-specific disqualifiers.
- An objection to an IME’s neutrality is not barred merely because it follows issuance of the IME report when the conflict basis becomes known later and is raised within a reasonable time.
- When an IME is disqualified, the hearing officer may decide a petition for review of incapacity on the remaining record; appellate review will not disturb the result absent legal error.

## Conclusion

The court upheld disqualification of an appointed IME based on evidence that the examiner’s professional and financial ties created reasonable doubt about independence, confirmed that hearing officers may make such conflict determinations in individual cases, and affirmed denial of the employer’s petition to terminate incapacity benefits.


Laskey v. S.D. Warren Co., 774 A.2d 358 (Me. 2001)