|| Home | Free Articles for Your Site | Submit an Article | Advertise | Link to Us | Search | Contact Us ||
A Summary Of Recent Pennsylvania & Federal Court Decisions & Rules Changes - Articles Surfing
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
1.1.Uninsured & Underinsured Motorist Benefits
1.2.Loaned Vehicle Coverage
1.3.Bad Faith Claims
1.4.Termination of Coverage
2.1.Vocational Expert Expenses
2.2.Payment of Medical Expenses
2.3.Description of Injury
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
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISION OF INTEREST
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.
Copyright © 1995 - Photius Coutsoukis (All Rights Reserved).
Arts and Crafts
Auto and Trucks
Business and Finance
Computers and Internet
Computers and Technology
Food and Drink
Food and Drink B
Gadgets and Gizmos
Kids and Teens
Medicines and Remedies
Music and Movies
Pets and Animals
Politics and Government
Recreation and Sports
Travel and Leisure
Travel Part B
Wellness, Fitness and Diet