Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Havenstrite v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 15, 2003Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY

Judge FRIEDMAN.

I concur with that portion of the majority’s opinion which affirms the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB) denying Charles E. Havenstrite’s (Claimant) petition to review medical treatment and/or billing and to review compensation benefits. I dissent, however, from that portion of the majority’s opinion which upholds the WCAB’s determination that chiropractic treatment rendered to Claimant by Joseph Intelisano, D.C., (Provider) after August 1, 2000, was neither reasonable nor necessary.

Claimant argues that where Thomas T.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Seamon v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  2. Solomon v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  3. Bolinsky v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  4. Seamon v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003

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

Powered by the Exa API