green
Positive treatment
43.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 27 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
J. Marten v. PPB
Mandamus requires “[1] a clear legal right in the [petitioner], [2] a corresponding duty in the [respondent], and [3] a lack of any other adequate and appropriate remedy at law.” Crozer Chester Medical Center v. Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, Health Care Services Review Division, 22 A.3d 189, 193 (Pa. 2011) (citations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Fort Washington Surgery Center v. Indemnity Ins. Co. of N.A. & ESIS, Inc. (Bureau of WC Fee Review Hearing Office)
Div., 22 A.3d 189, 198 (Pa. 2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Crawford, S., Aplts. v. Commonwealth
Ctr. v. Dep’t of Lab. & Indus., 22 A.3d 189, 194 (Pa. 2011) (quoting Bayada Nurses, Inc. v. Dep’t of Lab. & Indus., 8 A.3d 866, 884 (Pa. 2010)); Krentz v. Consol.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
J. LoDuca v. Pa. D.O.C. & Probation and Parole
(2×)
Crozer Chester Medical Center, 22 A.3d at 193.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Elite v. Premier Apl of: Premier Comp & Brick St.
(2×)
Ctr. v. Dept. of Lab. & Indus., 22 A.3d 189, 196 (Pa. 2011). 10 Id. at 197 . 11 Armour Pharmacy v. Bureau of Workers’ Comp.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
R. Glahn & D. Gorencel v. DEP
Mandamus requires “[1] a clear legal right in the [petitioner], [2] a corresponding duty in the [respondent], and [3] a lack of any other adequate and appropriate remedy at law.” Crozer Chester Medical Center v. Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, Health Care Services Review Division, 22 A.3d 189, 193 (Pa. 2011) (citations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Solid Waste Services, Inc. v. St. Luke's Hospital (Bureau of WC)
Div., 22 A.3d 189, 198 (Pa. 2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State Workers' Insurance Fund v. Harburg Medical Sales Co., Inc. (Bureau of Workers' Compensation Fee Review Hearing Office)
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
SWIF highlights the statement of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Crozer Chester II that “in cases in which liability for a particular treatment is at issue, the claimant, not the medical provider, must pursue compensation before a workers’ compensation judge in the regular course.” Id. at 12-13 (quoting Crozer Chester II, 22 A.3d at 195).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
UPMC Benefit Management Services, Inc. d/b/a UPMC Work Partners v. United Pharmacy Services (Bureau of Workers' Compensation Fee Review Hearing Office)
(16×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
UPMC contends that even where a claimant’s injury is accepted by means of an open NCP, “the insurer may nonetheless question liability for a particular treatment.” Id. at 21 (quoting Crozer Chester II, 22 A.3d at 195); see also Crozer Chester II, 22 A.3d at 197 (explaining that “liability for an injury is distinct from liability for a particular treatment or its cost.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ivy, G. v. Acker, P.
S62045/19 Comp., 22 A.3d 189, 194 (Pa. 2011) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Workers' First Pharmacy Services, LLC v. Bureau of WC Fee Review Hearing Office (Gallagher Bassett Services)
(2×)
This Court dismissed Crozer’s request for a writ of mandamus, and Crozer appealed. 11 The Department argued that there were practical considerations for a “regulatory prohibition against litigating liability within the context of the fee review process.” Id. at 193.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Workers' First Pharmacy Services, LLC v. Bureau of WC Fee Review Hearing Office (Gallagher Bassett Services)
(2×)
This Court dismissed Crozer’s request for a writ of mandamus, and Crozer appealed. 11 The Department argued that there were practical considerations for a “regulatory prohibition against litigating liability within the context of the fee review process.” Id. at 193.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
S. Landes, PH.D. v. Bureau of WC Fee Review Hearing Office (Vigilant Ins. Co.)
Health Care Review Div., 22 A.3d 189, 196 (Pa. 2011).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Scomed Supply v. Bureau of WC Fee Review Hearing Office (Lackawanna American Ins. Co.)
(3×)
This Court has explained that a “fee review is designed to be a ‘simple process’ with a ‘very narrow scope’ limited to determining the ‘relatively simple matters’ of ‘amount or timeliness’ of payment for medical treatment.” Selective Ins., 86 A.3d at 303 -04 (quoting Crozer, 22 A.3d at 196-97). “[T]he fee review process ‘presupposes that liability has been established.’ Accordingly, a fee review proceeding is not undertaken to determine liability for a particular treatment.” Id. at 304 (quoting Nickel v. Workers’ Comp.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kegerise, S. v. Delgrande, Aplts.
Ctr. v. Dep’t of Labor and Indus., Bureau of Workers’ Comp., 22 A.3d 189, 194 (Pa. 2011).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Brimmeier v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission
Bureau of Workers’ Comp[.], Health Care Serv[s.] Review Div[.], ... 22 A.3d 189, 193 ([Pa.]2011) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
American Body Care v. WCAB (Kmart Corporation and Sedgwick Mgmt. Svcs.)
As the Supreme Court in Crozer Chester Medical Center v. Department of Labor & Industry, 22 A.3d 189, 195-96 (Pa. 2011), stated: [U]nder the Act, if an insurer accepts that compensation is due for a particular treatment, a medical care provider may file an application for fee review to dispute the ‘amount or timeliness’ of the payment. 77 P.S. § 531(5); Catholic Health Initiatives v. Health Family Chiropractic, 720 A.2d 509, 511 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (commencement of fee review process ‘presupposes’ that liability has been established). … 6 Provider argues liability was never establish…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
A.S. v. Pennsylvania State Police
(2×)
Ctr. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 22 A.3d 189, 193 (Pa. 2011), quoting Delaware River Port Auth. v. Thornburgh, 493 A.2d 1351 , 1355–56 (Pa. 1985). (continuedP) [J-36-2016] - 11 ascertain and effectuate the intent of the General Assembly.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Bureau of Workers' Compensation Fee Review Hearing Office (Lehigh Valley Hospital)
(3×)
The 90-day period therefore did not begin to run until November 13, 2012, when the utilization review determinations were issued and did not expire until February 11, 2013, after the Bureau accepted Hospital’s fee review application. 6 Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, Health Care Services Review Division, 22 A.3d 189, 196 (Pa. 2011); Catholic Health Initiatives v. Heath Family Chiropractic, 720 A.2d 509, 511 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Prescription Partners, LLC v. Bureau of Workers' Compensation Fee Review Hearing Office (Healthsmart Casualty Claims Solutions)
(4×)
Id. at 196 (alteration in original) (emphasis added) (quotation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Selective Insurance Co. of America v. Bureau of Workers' Compensation Fee Review Hearing Office
Id. at 470 , 22 A.3d at 196 (internal punctuation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Friedman v. Corbett
Ctr. v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 610 Pa. 459, 466 , 22 A.3d 189, 194 (2011).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
County of Carbon v. Panther Valley School District
Crozer Chester Medical Center v. Department of Labor and Industry, Bureau of Workers' Compensation, 610 Pa. 459, 466 , 22 A.3d 189, 194 (2011).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kohn v. SCHOOL DIST. OF CITY OF HARRISBURG
Ctr. v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., — Pa. -, -, 22 A.3d 189, 193 (2011) (quoted case omitted).
discussed
Cited "see"
Elite Care, RX v. Premier Comp Solutions
(2×)
See Crozer Chester Medical Center v. Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, Health Care Services Review Division, 22 A.3d 189, 196-97 (Pa. 2011). 3 The Fee Review Hearing Office conducts evidentiary hearings on the validity of a fee-review determination.
discussed
Cited "see"
Elite Care, RX v. Premier Comp Solutions
See Crozer Chester Medical Center v. Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, Health Care Services Review Division, 22 A.3d 189, 196-97 (Pa. 2011). -3- J-A25005-21 issue of whether Elite Care was an agent of these providers.” Id. at ¶ 32.
discussed
Cited "see"
D. Colagreco v. WCAB (Vanguard Group Inc.)
See Crozer Chester Medical Center v. Department of Labor and Industry, Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, Health Care Services Review Division, 22 A.3d 189 , 195 15 (Pa. 2011) (URO determines only the reasonableness or necessity of a treatment offered for “an accepted work-related injury”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Natalie COTTETA, Respondent
v.
SIEMANS MEDICAL SOLUTIONS USA, INC., Petitioner
v.
SIEMANS MEDICAL SOLUTIONS USA, INC., Petitioner
159 EM 2010.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Mar 4, 2011.
Per Curiam.
Published
ORDER
PER CURIAM.AND NOW, this 4th day of March, 2011, the “Petition for Allowance of Appeal,” treated as a Petition for Permission to Appeal, is DENIED.