513 A.2d 566 | Pa. Commw. Ct. | 1986
Opinion by
This is an appeal by Harbison-Walker Refractories (Employer) and Commercial Insurance Company, Employers insurer, from an order of the Workmens Compensation Appeal Board (Board) affirming a referees decision allowing reimbursement of travel expenses incurred by Clinton P. Huntsman (Claimant) for travel in connection with medical treatment.
Claimant suffered a compensable back injury on December 27, 1976. He was paid benefits pursuant to a notice of compensation payable for various periods of disability. Claimants petition was filed solely for the purpose of obtaining reimbursement for travel expenses to and from Claimants home, in Mount Union, Pennsylvania, to the J.C. Blair Memorial Hospital, in Hunting-don, Pennsylvania, for physical therapy treatments (a thirty-nine mile round trip). The referee awarded travel expenses of $658.12 and the Board affirmed. The sole issue on appeal is whether travel expenses are reimbursable under Section 306(f) of The Pennsylvania Workmens Compensation Act,
The employer shall provide payment for reasonable surgical and medical services, . . . and supplies, as and when needed. . . .
The question thus becomes whether the travel expenses required to obtain the medical services were reasonable. Bonitz, in assessing the reasonableness fee-tor, considered inter alia, whether the Employer was aware of the long distance treatments and whether the employer had contested the underlying liability. In Bonitz, as here, the employer was aware of the distance and did not dispute its underlying liability for the injury.
Another relevant consideration in Bonitz, although not specifically held to be a prerequisite to obtaining reimbursement for travel expenses, was whether the claimant was specifically referred to the distant location for the treatment.
Finally, although not required by the Bonitz majority, a finding that the long distance treatment comprises an integral part of the ongoing medical treatment is another indicia of reasonableness.
Based upon the foregoing discussion we hold that the award of travel expenses was not statutorily precluded and was, under the instant facts, permissible. The order of the Board is affirmed.
Now, July 31, 1986, the order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, No. A-85814, dated April 26, 1984, is hereby affirmed.
Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended.
While testimony that one was referred to a specific distant locale is not required under Bonitz it is an important, even if not
See Bonitz, 81 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. at 600, 474 A.2d at 396 (Doyle, J., dissenting).