Jurisdiction.

- Tort action by workers against health care providers who billed the workers for medical services in violation of O.C.G.A. § 34-9-205 was properly dismissed since the complaints were grounded upon an alleged violation of the Workers' Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq., and redress was through the workers' compensation remedies. Mullis v. NC-CNH, Inc., 218 Ga. App. 332, 461 S.E.2d 237 (1995).

State Board of Workers' Compensation did not have exclusive jurisdiction over medical care providers' claims, under a third party beneficiary theory, against workers' compensation insurer/payors as the breach of contract claims raised a dispute related to contractual rights and did not implicate the rights of injured employees. Aetna Workers' Comp Access, LLC v. Coliseum Med. Ctr., 322 Ga. App. 641, 746 S.E.2d 148 (2013).

Fee schedule is a guideline rather than a "rule" which must be followed, and the board's approval of charges beyond those on the schedule can be challenged only on abuse-of-discretion grounds. Chatham County Dep't of Family & Children Servs. v. Williams, 221 Ga. App. 366, 471 S.E.2d 316 (1996).

Approval of attorney's fees.

- Authority to approve attorney's fees necessarily includes the authority to approve pro tanto as well as in toto any contract between the claimant and an attorney prosecuting the compensation claim. Clark v. Royal Globe Ins. Co., 116 Ga. App. 561, 158 S.E.2d 699 (1967).

Authority to approve attorney's fees is limited to the examination and approval of contracts between the claimant and claimant's attorney and does not include the authority to set the fees of attorneys, or to examine and approve contracts between attorneys as to the division of fees when associated to represent a claimant. Clark v. Royal Globe Ins. Co., 116 Ga. App. 561, 158 S.E.2d 699 (1967).

Jurisdiction of action for violation of fee schedule.

- State court did not have jurisdiction of action arising from an alleged violation of a fee schedule by a photocopy company which supplied copies of medical records to institutions for workers' compensation claimants. Claimants' redress was through workers' compensation remedies. Smart Professional Photocopy Corp. v. Dixon, 216 Ga. App. 825, 456 S.E.2d 233 (1995).

Workers' Compensation Board regulated photocopying charges.

- Because the Georgia Workers' Compensation Board, and not the Health Records Act, O.C.G.A. § 31-33-3, regulated the medical photocopying charges in workers' compensation proceedings, the trial court properly dismissed a declaratory judgment complaint filed by a photocopier, which sought guidance regarding the appropriate fee structure for medical photocopying services in workers' compensation proceedings, for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Smart Document Solutions, LLC v. Hall, 290 Ga. App. 483, 659 S.E.2d 838 (2008).

Dismissal of breach of contract claim not rquired.

- Workers' compensation insurers/payors were not entitled to dismissal of a breach of contract claim by medical care providers as the claim provided fair notice of the allegations, and the contract rights did not violate any law or public policy with respect to assertions as to promised reimbursement rates for services provided. Aetna Workers' Comp Access, LLC v. Coliseum Med. Ctr., 322 Ga. App. 641, 746 S.E.2d 148 (2013).

Cited in Cowart v. Ara Transp., Inc., 178 Ga. App. 766, 344 S.E.2d 734 (1986).

Procedure for referral of rehabilitative service fees to peer review committee unauthorized.

- The State Board of Workers' Compensation lacks the statutory authority to establish a procedure when questions concerning fee charges for rehabilitation services are referred to a peer review committee. 1983 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 83-28.

Fee schedule for vocational rehabilitation.

- The State Board of Workers' Compensation has the authority to implement a fee schedule for vocational rehabilitation suppliers. 1991 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 91-31.