Dispute whether injury has medically determined physical restrictions

Summary: Respondent moves for summary judgment on Petitioner’s PPD and rehabilitation claims on the following grounds: its independent medical examiner, a medical doctor, opined that Petitioner has no medically determined physical restrictions as a result of his injury; and Petitioner’s chiropractor, although offering a contrary opinion, may not create an issue of material fact because, under the 1991 statute, a chiropractor can provide neither the required “medically determined” physical restriction nor “physician’s” certification. Therefore, Respondent contends it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Petitioner’s claims.

Held: Although Petitioner’s chiropractor offered an opinion contrary to Respondent’s medical doctor, he may not create an issue of material fact because, under the 1991 statute, a chiropractor can provide neither the required “medically determined” physical restriction nor “physician’s” certification. Therefore, Respondent is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Petitioner’s claims for PPD and rehabilitation benefits.