Doctor's Choice Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Center, P.C. v. Travelers Personal Insurance

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Doctor's Choice Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Center, P.C. v. Travelers Personal Insurance

107 A.3d 747, 630 Pa. 640, 2014 Pa. LEXIS 3536

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedDecember 31, 2014

Docket512 MAL 2014 (Granted)

StatusPublished

This text of 107 A.3d 747 (Doctor's Choice Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Center, P.C. v. Travelers Personal Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Doctor's Choice Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Center, P.C. v. Travelers Personal Insurance, 107 A.3d 747, 630 Pa. 640, 2014 Pa. LEXIS 3536 (Pa. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

*641 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 31st day of December, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by petitioner are:

(1) Whether the Superior Court improperly interpreted § 1797 of the MVFRL, the Supreme Court case of Herd Chiropractic v. State Farm, and its own case of Levine v. Travelers, to allow attorneys’ fees even when an insurer has utilized the peer review process?

(2) Whether the Superior Court improperly interpreted and misapplied § 1797(b)(4) by holding that the insurer must oversee the statutory compliance of peer review organizations with 31 Pa.Code § 69.53(e)?

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*641 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 31st day of December, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by petitioner are:

(1) Whether the Superior Court improperly interpreted § 1797 of the MVFRL, the Supreme Court case of Herd Chiropractic v. State Farm, and its own case of Levine v. Travelers, to allow attorneys’ fees even when an insurer has utilized the peer review process?

(2) Whether the Superior Court improperly interpreted and misapplied § 1797(b)(4) by holding that the insurer must oversee the statutory compliance of peer review organizations with 31 Pa.Code § 69.53(e)?

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 A.3d 747, 630 Pa. 640, 2014 Pa. LEXIS 3536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doctors-choice-physical-medicine-rehabilitation-center-pc-v-pa-2014.