Bernard & Merrill, PLLC

A Hearing Officer at the Department of Labor ordered medical bills to be paid by the insurance carrier following an initial level hearing. The Hearing Officer granted a stay of payment 83 days after the request was submitted. The claimant did not appeal the decision granting the “stay”. After the appeal hearing, the Board ruled that because the “stay” was not granted by the Hearing Officer within the 30 day appeal period, the stay of payments “by operation of law was a nullity”. The Board concluded the carrier’s appeal was moot and ordered the medical bills to be paid. The Board did not address the substantive issues of whether the bills were related to the claimant’s work injury and whether they were reasonable and necessary.

The Court determined that the issue of whether the “stay” was properly granted “was not an issue before the Board and should not have been addressed.” The Court found that the claimant should have filed an appeal after the Hearing Officer granted the stay because then he “had an adverse ruling which he could appeal to the Board.” At oral argument, opposing counsel was forced to concede that Attorney Harding’s position was correct and the Board should have ruled on the issue of causation of the bills to the work injury. The Court reversed the erroneous Appeals Board decision and remanded the case to allow the Board to rule on the merits of the claim.