Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Chiro-Med Review Company v. Bureau of Workers'compensation

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 28, 2006No. 2478 C.D. 2005, No. 2570 C.D. 2005Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Judge SMITH-RIBNER,

concurring and dissenting opinion.

I concur in the decision to quash the appeal of Chiro-Med Review Company (Petitioner). I dissent, however, from the majority’s decision to affirm the order of the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Hearing Officer because of the clear error of law committed in this matter. The Hearing Officer reversed the Bureau’s revocation of Petitioner’s authority to perform utilization reviews despite finding that Petitioner violated certain Cost Containment Regulations, 84 Pa.Code §§ 127.1-127.755, governing Utilization Review Organizations (UROs). The…

2Cases cited6 opinions

Manor v. Department of Public WelfareCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
UGI Utilities, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
Teledyne Columbia-Summerill Carnegie v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
Lawson v. Pennsylvania Department of Public WelfareCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2004

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