Legal Opinion · Dissent

Crozer Chester Medical Center v. Department of Labor & Industry, Bureau of Workers' Compensation, Health Care Services Review Division

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 25, 2011Published

1DissentJustice Baer

I respectfully dissent. I would hold that the “open” and unmodified medical-only notice of compensation payable (NCP) issued by Re-Steel Supply Company (Employer), through its insurer Zurich North American Insurance Company (Insurer), constitutes a binding admission of liability for medical services related to the injury suffered by Claimant, William Ra-del, during the course of his employment. Accordingly, the medical provider that treated Claimant, Crozer Chester Medical Center (Provider) should be permitted to seek, through mandamus, a writ compelling the Department of Labor and Industry…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. County of Allegheny v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  2. Beissel v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  3. Delaware River Port Authority v. ThornburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  4. Barna v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  5. Mahon v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2003

2 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