Legal Opinion · Dissent

Squillace v. Wyoming State Employees' & Officials' Group Insurance Board of Administration

Wyoming Supreme Court

Decided February 28, 1997No. 95-316Published

1DissentGolden, Justice

I respectfully dissent. There is little question that an insurer is not required to pay for medical treatment simply because a treating physician has recommended the treatment. It is equally certain, however, that an insurer does not have sole discretion to decide that medical treatment obtained upon advice of a physician is not medically necessary. Upon the request of either the insurer or the insured, courts may review insurance payment decisions and the assessment procedures utilized by the insurers in making its decision. In conducting that review, courts must not add terms to a contract…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Kinzie v. Physician's Liability Insurance Co.Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 1987

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

Powered by the Exa API