ILNews

Judges rule on workers' comp billing issues

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Employers or their insurers - not health care providers - must prove when medical expenses for injured employees might be considered higher than what's allowed under the state's workers' compensation statute, according to the Indiana Court of Appeals.

In a series of rulings today that deal with injured firefighters and city workers in multiple Hoosier communities, a three-judge appellate panel interpreted the Indiana Workers' Compensation Act and how it applies to state statutes about medical billing disputes.

"This case requires us to review several statutes under the Act that balance the right of medical service providers to seek payment for medical care to injured workers, against the right of employers to demand that such payments not be excessive," the unanimous panel wrote, turning to its own Indiana precedent as well as rulings from other state and federal courts.

The cases are Washington Township Fire Department v. Beltway Surgery Center, No. 93A02-0811-EX-01006; City of Michigan City v. Memorial Hospital, No. 93A02-0811-EX-01010; and Onward Fire Department v. Clarian Health Partners, No. 93A02-0811-EX-01007. Three other suits on identical issues, filed the same day in November and assigned to the same writing panel of judges, were handed down June 25. They are Adecco Inc. v. Clarian Health Partners, No. 93A02-0811-EX-1008; Morgan County Commissioners v. Clarian Health Partners, No. 93A02-0811-EX-1009; and Wayne Township Fire Department v. Beltway Surgery Center, No. 93A02-0811-EX-1011.

The Washington case handed down June 24 dealt with medical provider Beltway Surgery Center, specifically involving about $11,563 in billed medical care that an injured firefighter received in March 2005 after sustaining injuries on the job. The township's workers' compensation insurer hired a billing review service as allowed by the Indiana Workers' Compensation Act, and that service determined the surgery center was charging too much - it didn't fall below a standard 80th percentile, the maximum amount an employer's "pecuniary liability" can be for medical services under the act. That service recommended that only about $5,104 be paid, and Beltway Surgery took the case to the compensation board to recover the remaining unpaid amount it had billed.

The other two unpublished opinions dealt with similar issues, one involving a Michigan City employee who received care at Memorial Hospital of South Bend, and the other an Onward Fire Department employee who received care at Clarian Health Partners.

With the lead and only published opinion of Washington, the panel unanimously determined that if an employer or its insurer refuses to pay the full amount of a medical service provider's bill, then the employer must prove before the Indiana Workers' Compensation Board that its pecuniary liability to that provider is less than the billed charges. The judges also held that if an employer fails to prove how a billing review service calculated that the amount exceeded the 80th percentile standard, then the board could order the employer to pay the full amount of the submitted bill.

"We conclude that placing the burden of proof on the employer is more consistent with Indiana law generally and with the Act itself," the court wrote. "The 80th percentile rule is a more precise codification of the general principle that medical bills sought to be recovered during litigation be reasonable and not be excessive."

Since employers or their insurers are allowed to hire billing review companies, then those reviewers should be capable of offering proof as to why a billed amount might be considered excessive, the court wrote. To conclude otherwise and require doctors or hospitals to prove why their bills aren't excessive would presume that happens more often than not and might stop medical service providers from providing that care to injured workers, out of fear they might not get fully paid.

"The value of such assurance of payment as an incentive for medical service providers to treat injured workers under the Act would be greatly diminished if employers, their insurers, and billing review services were permitted to make unilateral decisions to pay providers less than the amount of their billed charges without being required to prove the validity of such a reduction," the court wrote.

It would be up to the General Assembly to amend statute so that medical providers bear the burden of establishing that their bills fall outside that guideline, the judges determined.

The panel affirmed each of the decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board to place the burden on employers, and award the full amount of billed charges.

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. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT