321 Ga. App. 308
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- Zheng sustained a compensable injury on May 27, 2010 and began receiving medical care and benefits; employer suspended income benefits Oct 1, 2010 for alleged change in condition to return-to-work; ALJ upheld suspension based on a contemporaneous work-release from a treating physician; Zheng later regained benefits Oct 1, 2010 after reviewing multiple doctors; dispute centered on whether Zheng could change physicians, which doctors were on the employer’s panel, and who could bill for treatment; Board affirmed ALJ and the superior court affirmed by operation of law; cross-appeal by employer was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a valid physician panel and control of Zheng’s treatment? | Zheng claims no valid panel or proper control. | Employer posted a panel and properly explained its function. | No error; panel existed and control was maintained. |
| Is employer liable for nonpanel doctors’ treatment? | Employer should pay for nonpanel physicians due to continued treatment. | Treatment by nonpanel doctors was not employer’s responsibility. | Employer not liable for nonpanel doctors’ bills. |
| Did Zheng need Board approval to change physicians? | Zheng could change physicians if improperly restricted by panel. | Changes require Board approval; unilateral change not permitted. | Unilateral change not allowed; Board approval required. |
| Is Armstrong the authorized treating physician? | Zheng had authority to designate Dr. Delgado; Armstrong not controlling. | Employer’s panel/authorization context favored Armstrong; Delgado was unaffiliated. | Armstrong not conclusively established as the sole authorized treating physician. |
| Does appellate-timing jurisdiction bar cross-appeal? | Cross-appeal timing under OCGA 34-9-105 (b) is definitive. | Employer’s cross-appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nat. Biscuit Co. v. Martin, 225 Ga. 198 (1969) (administrative bodies vs. civil practice timeframes in workers’ comp)
- Boaz v. K-Mart Corp., 254 Ga. 707 (1985) (employee may see any doctor if employer terminates benefits and injury persists)
- McClendon v. Advertising That Works, 292 Ga. App. 677 (2008) (appeals and cross-appeals in workers’ compensation context)