Opinion
Argued May 9, 1975
July 25, 1975.
Workmen's compensation — Medical services — Reimbursement of medical expenses — Designation of physicians — Authorization — Inadequate medical services — The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act, Act 1915, June 2, P.L. 736.
1. Under The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act, Act 1915, June 2, P.L. 736, an injured employe may secure medical services from any licensed practitioner of his choosing and be reimbursed for the cost of such services, only if the employer does not tender such services and designate five physicians from which the employe must choose or if the services provided by the employer are inadequate or if the employer or a designated physician authorize other services. [463-4]
Argued May 9, 1975, before Judges KRAMER, MENCER and ROGERS, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 1678 C.D. 1974, from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of Smittie J. Brown v. Neville Chemical Company, No. A-68399.
Petition with Department of Labor and Industry for payment of medical bill. Petition granted. Employer and insurance carrier appealed to the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board. Award affirmed. Employer and insurance carrier appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Reversed.
Herbert Grigsby, with him Ralph A. Davies and Thomson, Rhodes Grigsby, for appellants.
Smittie J. Brown, appellee, for himself.
James N. Diefenderfer, for appellee, Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board.
Thomas W. Scott, with him John D. Killian and Killian Gephart, for amicus curiae, Life Fellowship of Pennsylvania.
This case is companion to Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board v. Overmyer Mold Company, 20 Pa. Commw. 342, 342 A.2d 439 (1975). Here, too, pursuant to Section 306(f) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P. S. § 531, the employer designated five physicians for treatment of injured employes. The referee found on substantial competent evidence that the instant claimant, Smittie J. Brown, had actual knowledge of the designation. He nevertheless refused to consult any of the designated physicians and was attended by a chiropractor who charged $424.00 for a course of treatment. The employer refused reimbursement, but a referee, affirmed by the Workmen's Compensation Board, awarded reimbursement of the chiropractor's charges. The employer has appealed.
In Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board v. Overmyer Mold Company, supra, we interpreted Section 306(f) as requiring employes to consult physicians designated by the employer and as relieving the employer from the obligation to pay for medical expenses incurred otherwise, without authorization of the employer or one of the physicians designated. The same considerations apply here and the same result must obtain.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 25th day of July, 1975, it is ordered that the decision of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board be and it hereby is reversed.