Keystone v. Bur. of W.C. Pet of: Compservices

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Keystone v. Bur. of W.C. Pet of: Compservices

DecidedSeptember 1, 2020

Docket93 EAL 2020 (Granted)

StatusPublished

This text of Keystone v. Bur. of W.C. Pet of: Compservices (Keystone v. Bur. of W.C. Pet of: Compservices) 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

Keystone v. Bur. of W.C. Pet of: Compservices, (Pa. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT

KEYSTONE RX LLC, : No. 93 EAL 2020 : : v. : Petition for Allowance of Appeal : from the Order of the : Commonwealth Court BUREAU OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION : FEE REVIEW HEARING OFFICE : (COMPSERVICES INC./AMERIHEALTH : CASUALTY SERVICES) : : : PETITION OF: : COMPSERVICES/AMERIHEALTH : CASUALTY SERVICES : : KEYSTONE RX LLC : No. 94 EAL 2020 : v. : : BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION : FEE REVIEW HEARING OFFICE : (COMPSERVICES INC./AMERIHEALTH : CASUALTY SERVICES), : : PETITION OF: BUREAU OF WORKERS’ : COMPENSATION FEE REVIEW HEARING : OFFICE :

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 1st day of September, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

at 93 EAL 2020 is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issues set forth below. Allocatur is

DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are: (1) Did the Commonwealth Court exceed the scope of its authority and substitute its judgment for that of the Pennsylvania Legislature when it promulgated a new rule which mandates non-healthcare providers are entities with standing and the right to intervene in the Workers’ Compensation Act’s Utilization Review process?

(2) Did the Commonwealth Court err when it gave non-healthcare providers via the right to void at any time, a Utilization Review Determination regarding the reasonableness and necessity of the care of the physician who wrote the prescription which led to the non-healthcare provider providing a good or service to the injured worker?

The Petition for Allowance of Appeal at 94 EAL 2020 is GRANTED. The issue,

as stated by Petitioner, is:

(1) Whether the Commonwealth Court violated the separation of powers doctrine by engrafting a new requirement onto the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act’s process for conducting utilization review of treatment by a health care provider by prospectively directing that non-treating entities be given notice and an opportunity to intervene in utilization reviews?

[93 EAL 2020] - 2

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT

KEYSTONE RX LLC, : No. 93 EAL 2020 : : v. : Petition for Allowance of Appeal : from the Order of the : Commonwealth Court BUREAU OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION : FEE REVIEW HEARING OFFICE : (COMPSERVICES INC./AMERIHEALTH : CASUALTY SERVICES) : : : PETITION OF: : COMPSERVICES/AMERIHEALTH : CASUALTY SERVICES : : KEYSTONE RX LLC : No. 94 EAL 2020 : v. : : BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION : FEE REVIEW HEARING OFFICE : (COMPSERVICES INC./AMERIHEALTH : CASUALTY SERVICES), : : PETITION OF: BUREAU OF WORKERS’ : COMPENSATION FEE REVIEW HEARING : OFFICE :

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 1st day of September, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

at 93 EAL 2020 is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issues set forth below. Allocatur is

DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are: (1) Did the Commonwealth Court exceed the scope of its authority and substitute its judgment for that of the Pennsylvania Legislature when it promulgated a new rule which mandates non-healthcare providers are entities with standing and the right to intervene in the Workers’ Compensation Act’s Utilization Review process?

(2) Did the Commonwealth Court err when it gave non-healthcare providers via the right to void at any time, a Utilization Review Determination regarding the reasonableness and necessity of the care of the physician who wrote the prescription which led to the non-healthcare provider providing a good or service to the injured worker?

The Petition for Allowance of Appeal at 94 EAL 2020 is GRANTED. The issue,

as stated by Petitioner, is:

(1) Whether the Commonwealth Court violated the separation of powers doctrine by engrafting a new requirement onto the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act’s process for conducting utilization review of treatment by a health care provider by prospectively directing that non-treating entities be given notice and an opportunity to intervene in utilization reviews?

[93 EAL 2020] - 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Keystone v. Bur. of W.C. Pet of: Compservices, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keystone-v-bur-of-wc-pet-of-compservices-pa-2020.