(Under Section 287.210 3., each party as of serve to the other, within 7 days before the date set for the Hearing all medical reports by any treating or examining physician or physicians, so that both sides might be informed.)
In Orr v City of Springfield, 118 S.W.3d 215 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003), claimant who sustained lower back injury exiting his patrol car while a police officer, was awarded future medical treatment. Former employer appealed stating they were prejudiced by admission of doctor's testimony but employer failed to request continuance since they did not receive medical records seven days before doctor's deposition pursuant to ?287.210.3. The Court stated that the statute "contemplates continuance as the remedy to a violation of the seven-day rule." Court of Appeals affirmed.
In Lowry v McDonnell Douglas Corp, Injury No. 93-083230, (LIRC) 2003, employer argued that the sending of five letters by the employee's medical expert to the employee's attorney which the employer was provided with, did not constitute a complete medical report as defined in ?287.210.5 and that his testimony beyond anything contained in those letters was in violation of the "seven day rule" of ?287.210.3. The Commission said that employer did not request a continuance, was allowed to cross-examine the doctor later by deposition, and given leave to let employer's medical expert review the employee's medical expert and be deposed again, therefore there was no prejudice to employer and the requirements of ?287.210 was substantially met.
In Bell v Butterball, (LIRC), 1/5/01, Exclusion of evidence criticized as remedy for 7-day rule violation, and court awards PTD against Fund.
In Collins v Kansas City Southwest Clinical Society, (LIRC), 7/27/00, (ALJ Mueller), Seven day rule did not apply to cumulative documents.
In Bruflat v Mister Guy, Inc., 933 S.W.2d 829 (Mo.App. W.D. 1996), the seven-day rule requiring service of medical seven days prior to the testimony or trial did not require that a complete medical report contain each hypothetical question or each opinion of the doctor based upon the report.
(Comment: This is an evolving area, as to how much opinion the doctor can give beyond the report.)
In Goodwin v Garmer's Elevator & Exchange, 933 S.W.2d 926 (Mo.App. E.D. 1996), as to the pre-trial deposition of an expert doctor, where the record has not been served within seven days of the deposition, the opposing party has the option of cross-examining the doctor immediately in that deposition or scheduling further cross-examination at a later date or delaying all cross-examination to a later date.
(Comment: This greatly weakens the seven day rule, allowing an expert witness to give a surprise opinion, and limiting the time of the opposing party to prepare cross-examination and evaluation.)