A. After an injury and so long as he claims compensation, the employee, if so requested by his employer or ordered by the Commission, shall submit himself to examination, at reasonable times and places, by a duly qualified physician or surgeon designated and paid by the employer or the Commission. However, no employer may obtain more than one examination per medical specialty without prior authorization from the Commission, based upon a showing of good cause or necessity. The employee shall have the right to have present at such examination any duly qualified physician or surgeon provided and paid by him. No fact communicated to, or otherwise learned by, any physician or surgeon who may have attended or examined the employee, or who may have been present at any examination, shall be privileged, either in hearings provided for by this title, or any action at law brought to recover damages against any employer subject to the provisions of this title.
B. If the employee refuses to submit himself to or in any way obstructs such examination requested by and provided for by the employer, his right to compensation and his right to take or prosecute any proceedings under this title shall be suspended until such refusal or objection ceases and no compensation shall at any time be payable for the period of suspension unless in the opinion of the Commission the circumstances justify the refusal or obstruction.
C. The employer or the Commission may in any case of death require an autopsy at the expense of the party requesting the same. Such autopsy shall be performed upon order of the Commission, and anyone obstructing or interfering with such autopsy shall be punished for contempt.
Code 1950, § 65-88; 1968, c. 660, § 65.1-91; 1991, c. 355; 1993, c. 379.
Notes of Decisions
Wiggins v. Fairfax Park Ltd. P'ship, 470 S.E.2d 591 (Va. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 13× “2-604 allows only the employer, employee, or insurer to request medical records related to claimant’s condition.”
Gordon v. Ford Motor Co., 685 S.E.2d 880 (Va. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 4× “[10] An example of a way that an employee could gain a new tolling period under the majority's holding by violating the Act is found in Code § 65.2-607. That section states: A. After an injury and so long as he claims compensation, the employee, if so requested by his employer…”
Pierce v. Caday, 422 S.E.2d 371 (Va. 1992).
· cites it 2× “11 (physician-patient privilege not applicable in any legal proceeding resulting from filing report of child abuse); and, Code § 65.2-607 (injured employee claiming workers’ compensation required to submit to examination by physician designated by employer, no fact communicated…”
Sherwin Williams Co. v. Jason M. England (Va. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 8× “” Under Code § 65.2-607,2 if a claimant in “any way obstructs” an independent medical examination, his benefits must be suspended unless the commission finds the circumstances justified that obstruction.”
Mathes v. Davis, 74 Va. Cir. 411 (Norfolk Cir. Ct. 2007).
· cites it 6× “See Va. Code § 65.2-607 (medical examination); R.”
James M. Blaker v. Perry's Heating, Air & Elec., et (Va. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 8× “He argues that he had no notice that the appointment was to be an "independent medical examination" and, therefore, his attendance was not mandatory under Code § 65.2-607. Code § 65.2-607 provides, in relevant part: A.”
Huffmon Ray Elliott v. James L. Neighbors (Va. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 8× “Moreover, no evidence showed that employer's request for the examination pursuant to Code § 65.2-607 was inappropriate. The fact that employer had already had claimant examined by an independent ophthalmologist with respect to his eye injury did not preclude employer from…”
Bruce Henry v. Prof. Bldg. Maint. (Va. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 6× “Specifically, claimant contends that the commission erred in finding that the IME was reasonable and necessary pursuant to Code § 65.2-607. Upon reviewing the record and claimant's brief, we conclude that this appeal is without merit.”
Fed. Express Corp. v. Connie T. Klyver (Va. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 4× “Howard Stern's August 6, 1998 examination of Klyver constituted a second independent medical examination which required authorization under Code § 65.2-607; (3) finding that Klyver's compensable back injury rather than her unrelated knee injury continued to disable her from…”
Am. Red Cross v. Kaushlya Verma (Va. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “Analysis Code § 65.2-607 provides: A. After an injury and so long as he claims compensation, the employee, if so requested by his employer or ordered by the Commission, shall submit himself to examination at reasonable times and places, by a duly qualified physician or surgeon…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-607(A) — 4 cases
Wiggins v. Fairfax Park Ltd. P'ship, 470 S.E.2d 591 (Va. Ct. App. 1996).
“2-604 allows only the employer, employee, or insurer to request medical records related to claimant’s condition.”
James M. Blaker v. Perry's Heating, Air & Elec., et (Va. Ct. App. 2000).
“He argues that he had no notice that the appointment was to be an "independent medical examination" and, therefore, his attendance was not mandatory under Code § 65.2-607. Code § 65.2-607 provides, in relevant part: A.”
Huffmon Ray Elliott v. James L. Neighbors (Va. Ct. App. 1998).
“Moreover, no evidence showed that employer's request for the examination pursuant to Code § 65.2-607 was inappropriate. The fact that employer had already had claimant examined by an independent ophthalmologist with respect to his eye injury did not preclude employer from…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-607(B) — 3 cases
Sherwin Williams Co. v. Jason M. England (Va. Ct. App. 2006).
“” Under Code § 65.2-607,2 if a claimant in “any way obstructs” an independent medical examination, his benefits must be suspended unless the commission finds the circumstances justified that obstruction.”
Huffmon Ray Elliott v. James L. Neighbors (Va. Ct. App. 1998).
“Moreover, no evidence showed that employer's request for the examination pursuant to Code § 65.2-607 was inappropriate. The fact that employer had already had claimant examined by an independent ophthalmologist with respect to his eye injury did not preclude employer from…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.