Boleratz v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
1Dissent
*1020DISSENTING OPINION BY
Judge SMITH-RIBNER.
I disagree with the majority’s erroneous determination that medically prescribed massage therapy provided to Blaine Boler-atz (Claimant) by a nationally certified massage therapist does not constitute “medical services” compensable under Section 306(f.1)(1)(i) of the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act), Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. § 531(1)(i). The massage therapy services were causally related to Claimant’s work injury and were provided on referral from his physician and pursuant to the physician’s prescriptions. The majority’s narrow…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Hannaberry HVAC v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Tobias v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
- Rieger v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Gallie v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
- Foyle v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.