Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of Smittie J. Brown v. Neville Chemical Company, No. A-68399.
Herbert Grigsby, with him Ralph A. Davies and Thomson, Rhodes & Grigsby, for appellants.
Smittie J. Brown, appellee, for himself.
James N. Diefenderfer, for appellee, Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board.
Thomas W. Scott, with him John D. Killian and Killian & Gephart, for amicus curiae, Life Fellowship of Pennsylvania.
Judges Kramer, Mencer and Rogers, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Rogers.
[ 20 Pa. Commw. Page 463]
This case is companion to Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board v. Overmyer Mold Company, 20 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 342, 342 A.2d 439 (1975). Here, too, pursuant to Section 306(f) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. § 531, the employer designated five physicians for treatment of injured employes. The referee found on substantial competent evidence that the instant claimant, Smittie J. Brown, had actual knowledge of the designation. He nevertheless refused to consult any of the designated
[ 20 Pa. Commw. Page 464]
physicians and was attended by a chiropractor who charged $424.00 for a course of treatment. The employer refused reimbursement, but a referee, affirmed by the Workmen's Compensation Board, awarded reimbursement of the chiropractor's charges. The employer has appealed.
In Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board v. Overmyer Mold Company, supra, we interpreted Section 306(f) as requiring employes to consult physicians designated by the employer and as relieving the employer from the obligation to pay for medical expenses incurred otherwise, without authorization of the employer or one of the physicians designated. The same considerations apply here and the same result must obtain.
And Now, this 25th day of July, 1975, it is ordered that the decision of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board ...