Court Opinion

ID: 9684471
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:58:17.035083+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:56.176365
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION TO REHEAR
We have reviewed petitioner’s contentions and find them to be without merit. Some courts, in interpreting the term “incurred”, have held that the insurer is liable for the payment of medical services which become necessary but are not actually performed within the fixed time period; also for medical services which have not been performed within the fixed period but have been paid for within that period. It follows that if the necessity for the medical services and expenses is manifested within the fixed time period, then they are incurred and the insurer is liable for their payment. Maryland Casualty Co. v. Thomas, [Tex.Civ.App.] 289 S.W.2d 652 [1956], This is true even though the services were not paid for within the fixed time. Whittle v. Government Employees Ins., 51 Misc.2d 498, 273 N.Y.S.2d 442 [1972], We align ourselves with the reasoning of these cases. It was known at the time the screws were inserted that removal of them was part and parcel of the surgical procedure. Once they were inserted, the appel-lee incurred the liability of their removal. While no case has been cited which is directly in point with the one before this Court, it is our opinion that each case of this nature must be evalued in light of the particular procedures and circumstances involved. Therefore, we reaffirm our decision, and the petition to rehear is denied.