Opinion ID: 2199933
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reasonableness of Medical Care

Text: The Act requires the employer prior to an adjudication of permanent impairment to furnish a physician and other services the physician or Board deems necessary. Ind.Code § 22-3-3-4(a) (1993). The Board is explicitly authorized in Ind. Code § 22-3-3-4(b), on application of either party, to determine what treatment is reasonably necessary during any period of temporary total disability. The statute is not entirely clear as a matter of syntax whether the time limitation during the period of temporary total disability applies to the Board's ruling or the furnishing of the services. [4] A practical construction, however, is that incident to an award or agreement relating to temporary total disability, the Board may also resolve any issues related to reasonably necessary medical treatment. It is clear that such a determination may be made immediately after the award or agreement for temporary total disability. Considerations of efficiency dictate a common sense construction that would permit the two to be resolved in a single proceeding. Moreover, Ind.Code § 22-3-3-7(a) provides that compensation on account of injuries that produce only temporary total disability or temporary partial disability is not to begin until the eighth day of disability except for medical benefits provided in [Ind.Code § 22-3-3-4]. This clearly implies that medical benefits are available immediately and that the period of temporary total disability may start with the injury even if benefits do not commence for seven days. The Board thus may make such a determination at any time during the period of temporary total disability. Ind.Code § 22-3-3-4(b) authorizes the Board to require the employer to furnish the necessary treatment. Indiana Code § 22-3-3-4(c) deals with the period after an award of permanent partial impairment, and also provides that the Board may require the employer to provide treatment or services as the Board deem[s] necessary to limit or reduce the employee's impairment. The statute does not by its terms make clear that a determination of the need for treatment or services is an award that may be enforced and appealed under the procedures described in Part II(A) of this opinion. However, the courts have treated medical benefits as awards subject to the restrictions of Ind.Code § 22-3-3-27. See, e.g., Gregg v. Sun Oil Co., 180 Ind.App. 379, 380-81, 388 N.E.2d 588, 589-90 (1979). Ordinary usage would indicate that if incorporated into an order of compensation or an order requiring (or refusing to require) direction to furnish specific treatment, a determination of what treatment is reasonably necessary becomes part of an order or award that becomes enforceable and appealable, and we so hold. See Ind.Code §§ 22-3-4-8 and -9 (1993).