Only the fee review arena has the authority to decide the issues of medical billing amounts, timeliness and who qualifies as a medical provider under the Act.

In this case, following a serious burn injury sustained by the claimant after falling in a puddle of hot water at work, the claimant filed a penalty petition, alleging that the employer failed to pay her physicians and hospitals over $410,000 for What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers.

A Utilization Review request that does not list all of a claimant’s treating providers does not render the request or the UR Determination invalid.

In this case, following the claimant’s April 2000 work injury, a C&R Agreement was approved by a Workers’ Compensation Judge and the medical portion of the claimant’s claim remained open. What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopts as law a “no coverage” exception to the equitable rule, precluding an insurer from pursuing subrogation against its own insured.

In the course and scope of his employment as a shipwright, the claimant slipped and fell on an icy sidewalk on the employer’s premises, sustaining injuries. The employer had a commercial hull policy from Acadia Insurance Company, the insurer. What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers.