Legal Opinion · Dissent

Fredericksburg Orthopaedic Associates v. Fredericksburg Machine & Steel, LLC

Court of Appeals of Virginia

Decided May 14, 2013No. 1714122Published

1DissentElder, J.

The majority holds that the medical provider “failed to offer any evidence supporting its assertion that in this particular case the medical charges, with the added 40% surcharge, were reasonable and necessary.” To that end, the majority concludes the commission did not err in finding that the medical provider’s treatment bills, including a 40% surcharge solely because employee was a workers’ compensation patient, were not prima facie evidence that the medical bills were reasonable and necessary. Because I believe this holding improperly shifts the burden of proving the reasonableness of the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Walters v. LittletonSupreme Court of Virginia · 1982
  2. CERES MARINE TERMINALS v. ArmstrongCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 2012
  3. Bogle Development Co., Inc. v. BuieSupreme Court of Virginia · 1995
  4. Portsmouth (City Of) School Board v. HarrisCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 2011
  5. Bogle Development Co. v. BuieCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1994

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

Powered by the Exa API