IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

3B Pain Management (Bureau of :

Workers’ Compensation Fee Review :

Hearing Office), : No. 1024 C.D. 2022

Respondent : Submitted: October 10, 2023

BEFORE: HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY 

JUDGE COVEY FILED: December 4, 2023

The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (Employer) petitions this 

Court for review of the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (Bureau) Medical Fee 

Review Hearing Office’s (Hearing Office) August 26, 2022 decision. Therein, the 

appointed hearing officer (Hearing Officer) determined that 3B Pain Management 

(Provider) is entitled to reimbursement for treatment provided to Amato Berardi 

(Claimant) for fee review applications: MF-617470 (Date of Service (DOS)

6/3/2021), MF-618287 (DOS 6/9/2021), MF-618673 (DOS 6/24/2021 to 

6/30/2021), MF-619640 (DOS 7/7/2021), MF-620322 (DOS 7/29/2021), MF620634 (DOS 8/19/2021), and MF-624846 (DOS 10/7/2021).

1

 Employer presents 

1

See Section 127.261 of the Bureau’s Regulations, which provides: “The hearing officer 

will issue a written decision and order within 90 days following the close of the record. The 

decision will include all relevant findings and conclusions, and state the rationale for the fee review 

adjudication.” 34 Pa. Code §127.261.
2

one issue for this Court’s review: whether the Hearing Officer erred by ruling that 

Employer was liable for payment of Claimant’s medical and chiropractic treatment.

After review, this Court affirms. 

On June 29, 2019, while employed as a clerk in Employer’s Wine & 

Spirits Store, Claimant fell in the parking lot outside Employer’s store. On August 

1, 2019, Claimant filed a claim petition (Claim Petition) under the Workers’ 

Compensation (WC) Act (Act),2alleging that he sustained an injury in the course 

and scope of his employment. Employer denied Claimant’s material allegations. On 

March 9, 2021, WC Judge (WCJ) Debra Bowers (WCJ Bowers) granted the Claim 

Petition, describing Claimant’s injury as a “meniscal tear of the right knee and 

chondromalacia of the femoral and tibial condyle of the right knee.” Reproduced 

Record at 14a. On December 16, 2021, the WC Appeal Board (Board) affirmed 

WCJ Bowers’ decision.3

Provider’s employee, Gina Giacoponello, D.C., administered 

chiropractic treatment to Claimant on at least eight occasions from June 3, 2021 

through October 7, 2021. This treatment consisted of spinal manipulation relating 

to low back pain, manipulation of Claimant’s knees and his right hip for pain, low 

level laser treatment on his right knee, and therapeutic massage for unidentified 

muscle spasms. Provider billed Employer’s third-party administrator Inservco 

Insurance Services, Inc. (Inservco) for this treatment as it related to Claimant’s work 

injury. Provider submitted seven invoices to Inservco totaling $3,185.00. Inservco 

denied payment for a large part of these invoices on the basis that the procedure 

codes were not valid reimbursable codes and/or were invalid for reimbursement 

under the Act. 

2 Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. §§ 1-1041.4, 2501-2710.

3 The Board remanded the matter to WCJ Bowers to make specific findings regarding the 

terms and intent of a fee agreement between Claimant and his counsel, but affirmed WCJ Bowers’ 

decision in all other respects. Board Order, 12/16/2021. 
3

Provider filed a fee review application for each invoice, and the 

Bureau’s Medical Fee Review Section (Fee Review Section) determined that the 

amount owed for each invoice was $0. Provider contested the fee review 

determinations, and the Hearing Office assigned the Hearing Officer to conduct 

hearings. At the hearings, Inservco argued that Provider’s invoices were for 

treatments to Claimant’s right knee, left knee, left hip, and back, which were not 

related to Claimant’s accepted work injury. In support of its argument, Inservco 

presented WCJ Bowers’ and the Board’s decisions. Provider asserted that, because 

Inservco’s denials were based on a lack of causal relationship between the treatment 

and the work injury, Inservco was required to seek utilization review (UR). Provider 

contended that, because Inservco did not do so, the invoices were payable. 

On August 26, 2022, the Hearing Officer determined that Provider was 

entitled to reimbursement for all of the treatment it provided to Claimant because

Employer/Inservco had neither sought UR of Provider’s treatment, nor filed a review 

petition related to said treatment. The Hearing Officer ruled that Provider submitted 

the proper billing to Inservco and that a denial based upon causal relatedness was 

not appropriate. On September 26, 2022, Employer appealed to this Court.4, 5 

Employer contends that the Hearing Officer erred by ruling that 

Employer was liable for the payment of medical and chiropractic treatment for 

4 Employer thereafter sought supersedeas before the Hearing Officer, but the Hearing 

Officer indicated that his office does not respond to supersedeas requests. Accordingly, Employer 

filed a Petition for Supersedeas in this Court. By March 23, 2023 Order, this Court denied 

Employer’s Petition for Supersedeas.

5 Our review in medical fee review cases determines whether 

constitutional rights were violated, whether an error of law was 

committed, or whether the necessary findings of fact were supported 

by substantial evidence. Regarding questions of law, our scope of 

review is plenary and our standard of review is de novo.

Workers’ First Pharmacy Servs., LLC v. Bureau of Workers’ Comp. Fee Rev. Hearing Off.

(Gallagher Bassett Servs.), 225 A.3d 613, 616 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020) (citation omitted).
4

Claimant’s left knee, left and/or right hip, and low back. Specifically, Employer 

argues that the burden of proving that the treatment at issue is causally connected to 

the work injury falls upon the employee, and although the Act requires that payments 

for treatment be paid within 30 days of receipt, this payment requirement is only 

triggered if the bills are connected with the work-related injury. Employer cites 

Section 127.255 of the Bureau’s Regulations, 34 Pa. Code § 127.255, to support its 

position.6

Initially, Section 306(f.1)(5)-(6)(i) of the Act provides, in relevant part:

(5) The employer or insurer shall make payment and 

providers shall submit bills and records in accordance with 

the provisions of this section. All payments to providers 

for treatment provided pursuant to this [A]ct shall be 

made within thirty (30) days of receipt of such bills and 

records unless the employer or insurer disputes the 

reasonableness or necessity of the treatment provided 

pursuant to paragraph (6). . . .

(6) Except in those cases in which a [WCJ] asks for an 

opinion from peer review under [S]ection 420[(a) and (b) 

of the Act, 77 P.S. §§ 831-832], disputes as to 

reasonableness or necessity of treatment by a health care 

provider shall be resolved in accordance with the 

following provisions:

6 Section 127.255 of the Bureau’s Regulations states:

The Bureau will return applications for fee review prematurely filed 

by providers when one of the following exists:

(1) The insurer denies liability for the alleged work injury.

(2) The insurer has filed a request for [UR] of the treatment 

under Subchapter C (relating to medical treatment review).

(3) The 30-day period allowed for payment has not yet 

elapsed, as computed under [Section] 127.208 [of the 

Bureau’s Regulations, 34 Pa. Code § 127.208,] (relating to 

time for payment of medical bills).

34 Pa. Code § 127.255. 
5

(i) The reasonableness or necessity of all 

treatment provided by a health care provider 

under this [A]ct may be subject to prospective,

concurrent or retrospective [UR] at the request 

of an employe, employer or insurer. . . . 

77 P.S. § 531(5)-(6)(i) (emphasis added).

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has explained:

[T]he Act mandates that employers or insurers pay 

providers within 30 days of the receipt of bills; however, 

that obligation is, at least temporarily, eliminated if 

employers or insurers dispute the reasonableness or 

necessity of the treatment at issue. [See 77 P.S. § 531(5)]

(“All payments to providers for treatment provided 

pursuant to this [A]ct shall be made within thirty (30) days 

of receipt of such bills and records unless the employer or 

insurer disputes the reasonableness or necessity of the 

treatment provided pursuant to paragraph (6)[, which 

addresses UR].”). In other words, if an employer or 

insurer triggers the UR mechanism for challenging the 

reasonableness or necessity of treatment, then the 

employer or insurer is not obligated to pay for the 

treatment unless the UR results in a determination that 

the treatment at issue was reasonable and necessary.

Keystone Rx LLC v. Bureau of Workers’ Comp. Fee Rev. Hearing Off., 265 A.3d 

322, 332 (Pa. 2021) (emphasis added); see also UPMC Benefit Mgmt. Servs. v. 

United Pharmacy Servs. (Bureau of Workers’ Comp. Fee Rev. Hearing Off.), 287 

A.3d 474, 480 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022) (quoting CVA, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal 

Bd. (Riley), 29 A.3d 1224, 1227 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (footnote omitted)) (“[T]he 

employer must pay the claimant’s medical bills within 30 days of receiving them,

unless the employer disputes the reasonableness and necessity of the treatment. If 

the employer believes that the treatment is not reasonable and necessary, it must 

submit the bills for a [UR] or face the possibility of a penalty.”). 

“Pursuant to Section 306(f.1)(5) of the Act, the permitted focus of the 

fee review process is the amount and/or timeliness of the payment from the 
6

employer or insurer.” Phila. Surgery Ctr. v. Excalibur Ins. Mgmt. Servs., LLC 

(Bureau of Workers’ Comp. Fee Rev. Hearing Off.), 289 A.3d 157, 161 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2023) (bold and underline emphasis added); see also Armour Pharmacy v. Bureau 

of Workers’ Comp. Fee Rev. Hearing Off. (Wegman’s Food Mkts., Inc.), 206 A.3d 

660, 670 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019) (“[T]he [] Fee Review Section[’s] . . . responsibility is 

solely administrative. Its inquiry is limited to the timeliness of the employer’s 

payment (or denial) and the correct amount of reimbursement owed to the provider.

[See Section 127.252 of the Bureau’s Regulations,] 34 Pa. Code § 127.252.”).

 “Clearly, the fee review process presupposes that liability has been 

established, either by voluntary acceptance by the employer or a determination 

by a [WCJ].” Cath. Health Initiatives v. Heath Fam. Chiropractic, 720 A.2d 509, 

511 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (emphasis added). Here, WCJ Bowers ruled that Employer 

was liable for Claimant’s work injury. This Court has explained: 

[O]nce liability for a work injury has been established, the 

employer may file a modification petition to change the 

scope of the accepted injury or it can seek [UR], which 

stays the 30-day deadline to pay a provider’s invoice. A 

claimant “may be under treatment for an array of medical 

problems, only some of which relate to the work injury. It 

is for the [UR] [o]rganization to sort this out.” 

[Workers’ First Pharmacy Servs., LLC v. Bureau of 

Workers’ Comp. Fee Rev., Hearing Off. (Gallagher 

Bassett Servs.), 225 A.3d 613,] 620-21 [(Pa. Cmwlth. 

2020)]. Stated otherwise, if the [treatment] was prescribed 

for a medical problem that is not work-related, “a fortiori

it is not reasonable or necessary for treatment of [the] 

accepted work injury.” Id. at 621. 

Omni Pharmacy Servs., LLC v. Bureau of Workers’ Comp. Fee Rev. Hearing Off.

(Am. Interstate Ins. Co.), 241 A.3d 1273, 1278 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020) (emphasis 

added).
7

In State Workers’ Insurance Fund v. Harburg Medical Sales Co.

(Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Fee Review Hearing Office), 287 A.3d 981 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2022) (Harburg), this Court affirmed the Hearing Office’s decision 

reversing a Fee Review Section determination that concluded the State Workers’ 

Insurance Fund (Fund) was not liable to provide reimbursement to a medical supply 

company for a claimant’s mattress overlay. Therein, the claimant suffered a workrelated injury for which the employer issued a notice of compensation payable 

accepting various injuries. Although the Fund reimbursed the supplier for various 

supplies and equipment, it denied reimbursement for the mattress overlay on the 

basis that medical documentation was required showing the mattress overlay’s 

relationship to the accepted work injury. The supplier submitted a fee review 

application to the Fee Review Section, which thereafter determined that the Fund 

was not required to pay for the mattress overlay because it was not properly billed. 

The supplier requested a hearing, following which the supplier argued that the Fund 

should have sought UR before withholding payment based on causal relatedness.

The Hearing Officer reversed the Fee Review Section’s decision and ordered the 

Fund to pay the supplier for the mattress overlay.

The Harburg Court held:

[The Fund] was obligated to seek [UR] to dispute liability 

for [the c]laimant’s treatment in order to render [the 

supplier’s] fee review application premature, because [the 

Fund’s] “defense” that the prescribed mattress overlay was 

not related to [the c]laimant’s work injury was “just 

another way of stating that [it] was not a reasonable or 

necessary ‘procedure’ for treating [the c]laimant’s 

‘diagnosis[.]’” Workers’ First, 225 A.3d at 620-21; see 

also Omni, 241 A.3d at 1275[,] 1278.

Harburg, 287 A.3d at 994.
8

Here, Employer’s claim “that the [disputed treatment] was not related 

to Claimant’s work injury ‘was just another way of stating that [it] was not a 

reasonable or necessary ‘procedure’ for treating Claimant’s ‘diagnosis[.]’” Id. 

Employer “was obligated to seek [UR] to dispute liability for Claimant’s treatment” 

and it did not do so. Id. Accordingly, the Hearing Officer properly determined that 

Provider was entitled to reimbursement for all of the treatment it provided to 

Claimant.

For all of the above reasons, this Court affirms the Hearing Office’s

decision.

_________________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

3B Pain Management (Bureau of :

Workers’ Compensation Fee Review :

Hearing Office), : No. 1024 C.D. 2022

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 4

th day of December, 2023, the Bureau of Workers’

Compensation Fee Review Hearing Office’s August 26, 2022 decision is affirmed.

_________________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge