In accordance with the direction of the Workers' Compensation Board, the employer's workers' compensation carrier submitted a consultant's report addressed to the issue of causation of claimant's asserted occupational illness. Although covered by a form that indicated it was a report of an independent medical examination (hereinafter IME), it is undisputed that the consultant did not conduct an IME, and that the report was generated upon a review of claimant's medical records. Affirming the Workers' Compensation Law Judge's denial of claimant's motion to preclude the consultant's report for failure to comply with Workers' Compensation Law § 137 (1) (b), a Board panel concluded that the statutory provision does not apply to reports that are based only upon a records review.
Workers' Compensation Law § 137 (1) (b) states that "[i]f a practitioner who has performed or will be performing an [IME] of a claimant receives a request for information regarding the claimant . . . the practitioner shall submit a copy of the request for information to the board within ten days of receipt of the request." Whether this notice requirement applies to practitioners who generate reports upon a records review without performing an IME is a pure question of statutory interpretation, and thus, deference to the Board is not required ( see Matter of Belmonte v. Snashall, 2 NY3d 560, 565-566). Nevertheless, we agree with the Board's conclusion that Workers' Compensation Law § 137 (1) (b) does not apply when, as here, the practitioner's report is based solely upon a review of a claimant's medical records.
Because it is expressly addressed to a practitioner "who has performed or will be performing an [IME] of a claimant," the plain language of Workers' Compensation Law § 137 (1) (b) supports the conclusion that a practitioner who has not performed or will not perform an IME need not comply with Workers' Compensation Law § 137 (1) (b). This conclusion is further supported by the plain language of the whole of Workers' Compensation Law § 137, which governs the conduct and reports of IMEs. The legislative history reveals that Workers' Compensation Law § 137, which was enacted in 2000, was intended to more closely regulate the IME process, which was yielding "improper and fraudulent examinations and reports" ( Matter of Belmonte v. Snashall, supra at 563; see generally Bill Jacket, L 2000, ch 473), and the notice provision set forth in Workers' Compensation Law § 137 (1) (b) seeks to provide claimants with "due-process rights or opportunities to rebut the IME findings" (New York State AFL-CIO and New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health, Unjust Treatment: "Independent" Medical Examinations Workers Compensation in New York Statehttp://www.nycosh.org/workers_comp/IME_Report1.html [last updated Dec. 30, 2002], cached at http:// www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/webdocs/NYCOSH_Independent_ Medical_Examinations.htm). Nothing in the legislative history suggests that Workers' Compensation Law § 137 (1) (b) applies to reports generated upon a review of a claimant's records without an IME. Finally, where, as here, the plain language of the statute compels the conclusion that Workers' Compensation Law § 137 (1) (b) does not apply to records review reports, claimant's contention — that such an interpretation is inconsistent with the purpose of Workers' Compensation Law § 137 because many of the problems experienced with IME reports prior to the enactment of Workers' Compensation Law § 137 pertain to records review reports as well — is an argument properly addressed to the Legislature, not this Court.
Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.