Legal Opinion · Dissent

Boleratz v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 24, 2007Published

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

  1. Hannaberry HVAC v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  2. Tobias v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  3. Rieger v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  4. Gallie v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  5. Foyle v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1993

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

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

Powered by the Exa API