Havenstrite v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
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
- Seamon v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
- Solomon v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Bolinsky v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Seamon v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003