 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Clay v. Department of Education11/20/2000
issioner for determination. The State asserts the reason the change in procedures was necessary when Clay switched her care to Dr. Hines is because it was unsure at that point whether there was a causal connection between some of the prescription charges and the work related injury. In other words it was questioning the necessity of the charges. Therefore, the procedures set forth in section 85.27 should have been followed by the State rather than simply not paying or indefinitely delaying payment of the charges.
Clay offered no statutory authority for her request that the State be ordered to set up an account for prescription costs, and the commissioner found such relief inappropriate. We agree. The employer has the right to challenge the causal connection or necessity. We believe, based on the evidence in the record, the State has a reasonable basis for questioning several of the prescription charges contested here. However, we agree with the agency that in the event of any further disputes as to whether prescription costs, or any other medical treatment submitted by Clay, is "necessary" or related to the work injury the State shall make use of the provisions of Iowa Code section 85.27 and Iowa Administrative Code section 876-10.3 to settle such disputes rather than merely refusing or indefinitely delaying payment. This is necessary in order to avoid undue inconvenience to Clay and violation of the spirit of the statute.
This directive includes the $183.91 in outstanding prescription charges Clay has specifically asked the court to order paid by the State. The State has alleged there is no medical evidence causally connecting these charges to Clay's work related injury and has refused to pay these charges. If the State believes these charges to be unnecessary or unrelated to the work injury it must under section 85.27 bring such charges to the commissioner for determination. Otherwise the State must pay the charges promptly and without further undue inconvenience to Clay.
III. CONCLUSION
We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Clay's request for remand to the agency for the taking of additional evidence. We further conclude substantial evidence supports the commissioner's decision that Clay is not entitled to additional worker's compensation benefits based on her review-reopening petition. Therefore, the district court committed no error of law. The district court's rulings on Clay's application for leave to present additional evidence before the agency and her petition for judicial review are affirmed in their entirety. The State shall promptly submit any dispute concerning the $183.91 prescription charges to the commissioner or pay those charges.
AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|