Bee Hive Mining Co v. Indus. Comm'n Of Va.
| Decision Date | 18 March 1926 |
| Citation | 132 S.E. 177 |
| Parties | BEE HIVE MINING CO. et al. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF VIRGINIA. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Petition for a writ of prohibition by the Bee Hive Mining Company and others, to restrain the Industrial Commission of Virginia from issuing a certified copy of an award and from proceeding further. Writ awarded.
S. L. Sinnott, of Richmond, for petitioners.
This is a petition for a writ of prohibition.
Appellant contends that the Industrial Commission has no power to require an employer or its insurance carrier to pay a money award to a physician furnished by them, or either of them, to an injured employee. This the industrial Commission undertook to do, as will appear from a reference to the case of Bee Hive Mining Co. et al. v. Dr. Ford (Va.) 131 S. E. 203. The appeal in this case was dismissed at the January term of this court because the amount involved was not sufficient to give this court jurisdiction.
The petition now before this court raises the question of the jurisdiction of the Industrial Commission to pass upon fees of physicians, Under the circumstances above narrated, and we are asked to prohibit the in dustrial Commission from issuing a certified copy of the award and from further proceeding in the matter.
Whatever control the commission has over fees of physicians it gets from section 65 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, which is as follows:
"Fees of attorneys and physicians and charges of hospitals for services under this act shall be subject to the approval of the commission; but no physician shall be entitled to collect fees from an employer or insurance carrier until he has made the reports required by the Industrial Commission in connection with the case." Acts 1924, c. 318, § 1.
We do not construe this section as conferring on the Industrial Commission the power to require the employer or. its insurance carrier to pay a money award to a physician furnished by them, or either of them, to the injured employee. This section was intended, as we construe it, to give the Industrial Commission the power to pass on attorneys' fees and physicians' charges when rendered—in other words, it was the intent of the act not to allow an attorney or a physician to overcharge for their services. There is nothing in this section that could be construed to give authority to the Industrial Commission to make a money award against an employer and insurance carrier and in favor of a physician, who, at their request, had rendered services to an injured employee.
Of course, if in accordance with the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Law, the employer or its insurance carrier had ordered the services of a physician, and refused to pay for them, the physician would have a right to maintain an action at law, but the Industrial Commission has no authority under the law to require the employer or its insurance carrier to pay a physician ordered by them.
We think, therefore, that the commission was without jurisdiction to make the award,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
St. Luke's Hosp. v. Labor Relations Comm'n
...Inc., v. New York, 276 N.Y. 198, 11 N.E.2d 728;Bank of Yorktown v. Boland, 280 N.Y. 673, 21 N.E.2d 191;Bee Hive Mining Co. v. Industrial Commission, 144 Va. 240, 132 S.E. 177;Long Flame Coal Co. v. State Compensation Commissioner, 111 W.Va. 409, 163 S.E. 16. We now pass to the only question......
-
State ex rel. Brewen-Clark Syrup Co. v. Missouri Workmen's Compensation Commission
... ... Willys-Overland Co. v. Clark, 147 N.E. 33; Bee Hive ... Mining Co. v. Industrial Comm., 132 S.E. 177; Sec. 41 ... Workmen's ... ...
-
Floyd v. Department of Labor and Industries
...Metal Supply Co. v. Pillsbury, 172 Cal. 407, 156 P. 491; French v. Rishell, 40 Cal.2d 477, 254 P.2d 26; Bee Hive Mining Co. v. Industrial Commission, 144 Va. 240, 132 S.E. 177; Long Flame Coal Co. v. State Compensation Commissioner, 111 W.Va. 409, 163 S.E. 16; State ex rel. Brewen-Clark Syr......
-
State ex rel. Syrup Co. v. Compensation Comm.
...208 S.W. 835; State ex rel. McEntee v. Bright, 224 Mo. 514; State ex rel. Willys-Overland Co. v. Clark, 147 N.E. 33; Bee Hive Mining Co. v. Industrial Comm., 132 S.E. 177; Sec. 41. Workmen's Compensation Act. (b) Respondents are attempting to proceed in a case where they do not have jurisdi......