Source: https://www.seglawyersvermont.com/scott-myrick-v-ormond-bushey-sons-april-24-2014/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 14:41:48+00:00

Document:
payment of Dr. Bucksbaum’s medical charges?
provider who failed to properly bill for or substantiate the treatment rendered?
travel for medical treatment causally related to his compensable work injury?
Therefore, I consider this claim withdrawn.
Defendant did not do so.
work injury and medically necessary, Defendant was obligated to pay for them.
5. On or about May 10, 2012 Defendant issued payment in the amount of $2,869.06 to Dr.
of the medical fee schedule, Workers’ Compensation Rule 40.
interest and penalties as specified in the interim order.
employed nor receiving temporary total disability benefits.
9. When Claimant began treating with Dr. Bucksbaum, his mileage to and from Dr.
Bucksbaum’s Rutland, Vermont office totaled 80.4 miles. At some point, Dr.
specialist’s interim order it appears to have been in excess of 600 miles round-trip.
reflect either the diagnosis or the specific treatments provided.
reasonable doubts and inferences. State v. Delaney, 157 Vt. 247, 252 (1991); Toys, Inc.
in consideration of Claimant’s normal commute distance to and from work.
decided, see, e.g., Yustin v. State of Vermont Department of Public Safety, Opinion No.
material fact are found to exist, see, e.g., Hathaway v. S.T. Griswold & Co., Opinion No.
motion can demonstrate that [it] has evidence sufficient to create an issue.” Tierney v.
Tierney, 131 Vt. 48, 51-52 (1973).
appropriate. Ross v. Times Mirror, Inc., 164 Vt. 13 (1995).
present sufficient evidence to overcome summary judgment at the formal hearing stage.
statute, having been entrusted by the Legislature with its administration. See, e.g., Cyr v.
Insurance Co., 2008 VT 106, ¶8.
certified, and therefore are not ripe for consideration on appeal. See, Morrisseau v.
notice of it to verify its accuracy.” Workers’ Compensation Rule 7.1010.
14. Defendant has made no attempt to explain why it failed to respond to Claimant’s request.
to double payment for the two bills without subsequently issuing a refund to Claimant.
such that reimbursement to someone other than the provider itself will have to be made.
request whatever additional records or reports are necessary. 21 V.S.A. §640a(a)(2).
insufficient at this point to support such an order.
a total of $180.00, representing payment for four treatments he received from Dr.
Sweetland between November 8, 2008 and February 16, 2009. It asserts that because Dr.
entitled to payment under the statute.
§640(a) for paying the charges related thereto.2 V.O. v. Windsor Hospital, Opinion No.
well, and therefore not covered under §640(a).
and (g), further disqualifies him.
consequence I properly can lay at Defendant’s feet.
covered under the workers’ compensation statute. For this reason, and also because Dr.
pay his charges, either directly or by way of reimbursement to Claimant.
he contends that the “normal commute distance” deduction should not have applied.
Opinion No. 11-11WC (May 5, 2011).
the purpose of the rule are clear, and do not allow for the exception Claimant favors.
office.3 Summary judgment in its favor is appropriate, therefore.
that Rule 12.2100 does not permit the interpretation for which Claimant advocates, I need not reach this argument.
obligation to pay Dr. Bucksbaum’s charges themselves, not the mileage charges to and from his office.
DATED at Montpelier, Vermont this 24th day of April 2014.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 §640

§640
 v. 
 §640