HILL v. AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
1Opinion of the Court
COMBS, C.J.:
¶ 1 The question before this Court concerns whether evidence in the underlying workers compensation proceeding should have been excluded by the administrative law judge, as well as the constitutionality of several provisions of the Administrative Workers Compensation Act (AWCA), 85A O.S. §§ 1 - 125, that require mandatory use of the Sixth Edition of the American Medical Association's Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides, Sixth Edition) to evaluate permanent partial disability (PPD). This Court determines the administrative law judge did not err by admitting…
Also in this document: Concurring in part, dissenting in part.
2Cases cited59 opinions
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Daniels v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Marbury v. MadisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
- Youngberg v. Romeo Ex Rel. RomeoSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Protz v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- FARLEY v. CITY OF CLAREMORESupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2020
- BRAITSCH v. CITY OF TULSASupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2018
- KNOX v. OKLAHOMA GAS AND ELECTRIC CO.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2024
- UPTON v. CITY OF TULSASupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2018
- CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY v. OKLAHOMA CORPORATION COMMISSIONSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2024
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.