ILNews

High court adopts COA opinion in billing dispute

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer Wednesday in a dispute over who bears the burden to prove "pecuniary liability" under the Worker's Compensation Act, and adopted the Indiana Court of Appeals' opinion on the matter.

Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 58(A)(1), the high court adopted and incorporated the Court of Appeal's opinion in Washington Township Fire Department v. Beltway Surgery Center, No. 93S02-1002-EX-115, in which the appellate court held an employer, not a medical provider, bears the burden of proving whether the charges for medical services provided to an employee exceed the employee's liability to pay under the act.

Beltway Surgery Center provided medical services to a Washington Township Fire Department employee and then submitted a bill to the township's worker's compensation insurance carrier. After a review to determine Washington Township's pecuniary liability under the act, the insurer decided to only pay part of the bill. Beltway filed an application for adjustment of claim with the Worker's Compensation Board. The board ordered the township to pay the remaining balance and concluded the township has to prove its pecuniary liability to Beltway was less than Beltway's billed charges.

The COA upheld the board's decision and held that where an employer refuses to pay in full a medical provider's billed charges, and the provider files a claim with the Worker's Compensation Board and establishes the charges for services to an employee, it's up to the employer to prove the charges exceed the employer's liability under the act. The board may also require that an employer who doesn't meet this burden must pay the medical provider's full bill.

The Court of Appeals judges concluded that placing the burden of proof on the employer is more consistent with Indiana law generally and with the act itself. They also ruled it would be up to the General Assembly to amend state statute so that medical providers would have to bear the burden of establishing that their bills fall outside certain guidelines.

This is the same issue in five other cases pending before the Supreme Court. In a footnote in the opinion, the justices noted they denied transfer to the other five cases based on its adoption and agreement with the Court of Appeals' opinion in Beltway. Those other cases are Onward Fire Department v. Clarian Health Partners, No. 93A02-0811-EX-1007; Adecco, Inc. v. Clarian Health Partners, No. 93A02-0811-EX-1008; Morgan County Commissioners v. Clarian Health Partners, No. 93A02-0811-EX-1009; City of Michigan City v. Memorial Hospital, No. 93A02-0811-EX-1010; and Wayne Township Fire Department v. Beltway Surgery Center, No. 93A02-0811-EX-1011.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I'm not sure what's more depressing: the fact that people would pay $35,000 per year to attend an unaccredited law school, or the fact that the same people "are hanging in there and willing to follow the dean’s lead in going forward" after the same school fails to gain accreditation, rendering their $70,000 and counting education worthless. Maybe it's a good thing these people can't sit for the bar.

  2. Such is not uncommon on law school startups. Students and faculty should tap Bruce Green, city attorney of Lufkin, Texas. He led a group of studnets and faculty and sued the ABA as a law student. He knows the ropes, has advised other law school startups. Very astute and principled attorney of unpopular clients, at least in his past, before Lufkin tapped him to run their show.

  3. Not that having the appellate records on Odyssey won't be welcome or useful, but I would rather they first bring in the stray counties that aren't yet connected on the trial court level.

  4. Aristotle said 350 bc: "The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

  5. Oh yes, lifetime tenure. The Founders gave that to the federal judges .... at that time no federal district courts existed .... so we are talking the Supreme Court justices only in context ....so that they could rule against traditional marriage and for the other pet projects of the sixties generation. Right. Hmmmm, but I must admit, there is something from that time frame that seems to recommend itself in this context ..... on yes, from a document the Founders penned in 1776: " He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

ADVERTISEMENT