Legal Opinion · Dissent

Insurance Co. of North America v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 11, 1991No. 1986 C.D. 1989Published

1DissentDoyle, Judge

I respectfully dissent. Section 306(f)(2)(ii) of The Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act (Act) Act of June 2, 1915 P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. § 531(2)(ii), provides:

The employer shall have the right to petition the department for review of the necessity or frequency of treatment or reasonableness of fees for services provided by a physician or other duly licensed practitioner of the healing arts. Such a petition shall in no event act as a supersedeas, and during the pendency of any such petition the employer shall pay all medical bills if the physician or other practitioner of the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Fuhrman v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  2. ADIA Personnel Agency v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  3. Johnson v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  4. Glinka V.Workmens Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  5. Chabotar v. S. Klein Department StoreCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1976

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API