Court Opinion

ID: 9506978
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:16:23.490794+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:12.504983
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE JOHN C. HARRISON
(concurring and dissenting).
I concur and dissent. Clearly the plaintiffs are entitled to coverage for the first visit made to Dr. Turkel. The reference was made by a licensed practitioner of this state and there was no way that they could determine that the treatment performed would be found to be “experimental” and “unacceptable medical practice” after the fact.
However, the visits thereafter followed notice by the appellant that such treatment would not be paid for, and the reasons why the services would be denied. Respondents, in spite of this notice, continued treatment at their own risk. I would not authorize any recovery for the visits following the notice from appellant.