concurring in result.
The majority states that a physician may rate a patient as zero impaired without further testing when (1) the FVC, FEVi, and FEVi/FVC are all normal, (2) the patient has performed the tests in the appropriate manner, (3) the patient’s complaint’s are consistent with such results, and (4) the patient has not stated that he or she is physically unable to meet the demands of a specific job because of breathlessness, citing the Guides at 86 Table 1, 97, and 98. This is a departure from one of our earlier conclusions in Gaines v. Sun Refinery, 790 P.2d 1073 (Okl.1990). Therein we noted that the Guides (Table 1 at P. 86) appeared to allow a finding of impairment based on positive results from any one of the three standards appearing therein: Dyspnea, or Tests of Ventilatory Function (FVC, FEV, FEVi/FVC) or the VO2 Max. If a finding of impairment could be based on positive results from any of the three, we reasoned that a finding of zero impairment would have to be based on a showing of negative results from all of the three. Hence we concluded that the Guides required a negative V02 test to support a finding of zero impairment.
Our conclusion may have led to practical difficulties in the Compensation medical workplace. Apparently many physicians’ offices where spirometry (ventilatory function) testing is done are not equipped to administer the VO2. Also, it is clear that some claimants may not, for other health reasons, be safely placed on á treadmill or cycle ergometer, the device used in measuring the VO2. Guides, P. 97. In any event, the majority now concludes our earlier reading of the Guides incorrectly overloaded the Respondent’s physician, and I am prepared to accept the Court’s repudiation of that facet of the Gaines opinion.
Claimant’s principal objection here was that Respondent’s doctor failed to administer the Deo test.1 The Guides describe the requirement for administering the Dco thus: “The single breath Dco should be performed when a patient has respiratory complaints that are of a greater severity than the observed spirometry results would indicate.” We have explained that whether particular complaints do not correlate with the spirometry results so as to require a Dco test calls for the exercise of medical discretion that we will not second guess. Orrell v. B.F. Goodrich, 787 P.2d 848 (1990). This holding recognizes that with any given normal spirometry and attendant patient complaints, one doctor may think a *595Dco test is indicated while another doctor may not. Nothing in the record before us suggests that the employer’s doctor was required to give the Dc0 test. See Orrell v. B.F. Goodrich, supra.
I agree with the majority that the order of the Workers’ Compensation Court is supported by competent evidence.
. The Dco test measures the amount of carbon monoxide that diffuses across the alveolar-capillary membrane in a specified amount of time. Guides at 97. Although the variability in the test is large compared to other tests the Guides state that the test is useful: "It is especially useful in detecting abnormalities that limit gas transference, such as interstitial fibrosis of the lung parenchyma.” Id.