| Home | Free Articles for Your Site | Submit an Article | Advertise | Link to Us | Search | Contact Us | |
Custom Search
|
Article Surfing ArchiveA Summary Of Recent Pennsylvania & Federal Court Decisions & Rules Changes - Articles SurfingREPORTING DECISIONS THROUGH MAY 4, 2006 Practice Tip: Exploding the Myth of the 90-Day Rule Treatment with a 'company doctor' is governed by Section 306(f.1)(1)(i), whose relevant provision says: Provided an employer establishes a list of at least six designated health care providers, no more than four of whom may be a coordinated care organization and no fewer than three of whom shall be physicians, the employe shall be required to visit one of the physicians or other health care providers so designated and shall continue to visit the same or another designated physician or health care provider for a period of ninety (90) days from the date of the first visit: Provided, however, That the employer shall not include on the list a physician or other health care provider who is employed, owned or controlled by the employer or the employer's insurer unless employment, ownership or control is disclosed on the list. . . . Should the employe not comply with the foregoing, the employer will be relieved from liability for the payment for the services rendered during such applicable period. It shall be the duty of the employer to provide a clearly written notification of the employe's rights and duties under this section to the employe. The employer shall further ensure that the employe has been informed and that he understands these rights and duties. This duty shall be evidenced only by the employe's written acknowledgment of having been informed and having understood his rights and duties. Any failure of the employer to provide and evidence such notification shall relieve the employe from any notification duty owed, notwithstanding any provision of this act to the contrary, and the employer shall remain liable for all rendered treatment. Subsequent treatment may be provided by any health care provider of the employe's own choice. (emphasis supplied) In the decade or so since the legislature enacted this provision, I have never met an injured worker whose employer complied with it. Consequently, and much to the dismay of employers and insurers, if the employer hasn't provided the employee with requisite written notification, and obtained the employee's signature, and provided the list complies with all of the other requirements of Section 306(f.1), an injured worker does not have to treat with a company doctor. Dan Siegel to Speak to Montgomery County Bar Association on Friday, June 9th For more information about the meeting, contact the Montgomery Bar Association. The meeting is open to all Montgomery Bar Association Members, and pre-registration is requested. Dan Siegel Authors Feature Article About Case Management Software PENNSYLVANIA STATE COURT DECISIONS 1.AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE 1.1.Uninsured & Underinsured Motorist Benefits 1.2.Loaned Vehicle Coverage 1.3.Bad Faith Claims 1.4.Termination of Coverage 2.WORKERS' COMPENSATION 2.1.Vocational Expert Expenses 2.2.Payment of Medical Expenses 2.3.Description of Injury 3.ADMINISTRATE PROCEDURE 3.1.Timeliness of Appeals ' Mailing 1.The date of the postmark on the envelope containing the appeal; or 2.A Certificate of Mailing; or If there is no official U.S. Postal Service postmark, no Certificate of Mailing and no Certified Mail receipt, then the mailing date/appeal date will be determined by the date of the postage meter mark on the envelope containing the appeal. 4.CAUSES OF ACTION/DEFENSES 4.1.Sovereign Immunity UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISION OF INTEREST 1.MEDICAID SUBROGATION NEW FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 Many lawyers have complained for years about the practice by which Courts designate opinions as 'Memorandum Opinions' or 'non-precedential.' While this practice continues in Pennsylvania, it will end in the Federal Courts on January 1, 2007, when Fed.R.A.P. 32.1 goes into effect. The Rule prohibits a court from restricting the citation of federal judicial opinions, orders, judgments or other written dispositions that have been designated 'unpublished,' 'not for publication,' 'non-precedential,' 'not precedent,' etc. After January 1, 2007, if a party cites a federal judicial opinion, order, judgment, or other written disposition that is not available in a publicly accessible electronic database, the party must file and serve a copy of that opinion, order, judgment or disposition with the brief or other paper in which it is cited.
RELATED SITES
Copyright © 1995 - Photius Coutsoukis (All Rights Reserved). |
ARTICLE CATEGORIES
Aging Arts and Crafts Auto and Trucks Automotive Business Business and Finance Cancer Survival Career Classifieds Computers and Internet Computers and Technology Cooking Culture Education Education #2 Entertainment Etiquette Family Finances Food and Drink Food and Drink B Gadgets and Gizmos Gardening Health Hobbies Home Improvement Home Management Humor Internet Jobs Kids and Teens Learning Languages Leadership Legal Legal B Marketing Marketing B Medical Business Medicines and Remedies Music and Movies Online Business Opinions Parenting Parenting B Pets Pets and Animals Poetry Politics Politics and Government Real Estate Recreation Recreation and Sports Science Self Help Self Improvement Short Stories Site Promotion Society Sports Travel and Leisure Travel Part B Web Development Wellness, Fitness and Diet World Affairs Writing Writing B |