Bogle Development Co., Inc. v. Buie
| Decision Date | 03 November 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 950065,950065 |
| Citation | 463 S.E.2d 467,250 Va. 431 |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | BOGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., et al. v. Roy BUIE. Record |
S. Vernon Priddy, III (Edward H. Starr, Jr., Sands, Anderson, Marks & Miller, Mays & Valentine, on briefs), for appellants.
Craig A. Brown (Lawrence J. Pascal, Ashcraft & Gerel, on brief), for appellee.
Present: CARRICO, C.J., COMPTON, STEPHENSON, LACY, HASSELL, KEENAN, JJ., and POFF, Senior Justice.
William Roy Buie suffered a work-related injury in 1988. The Workers' Compensation Commission (Commission) determined that his injury was compensable, and that his statutory employer, Bogle Development Company, Inc., and its workers' compensation carrier, Rockwood Insurance Company (collectively "Bogle"), were liable for Buie's lost wages and medical expenses. 1
In 1991, Bogle refused to pay some of Buie's claims for reimbursement of medical expenses, asserting they were unauthorized expenses. On March 9, 1992, the Commission entered an order holding that the disputed medical treatment was justified and that "the defendants are responsible for payment of the treatment." Based on this order, Buie submitted a claim for reimbursement of medical expense payments which he and his insurance carrier, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Tennessee (Blue Cross/Blue Shield) had made. In response to his request for payment, Bogle informed Buie that Guaranty Fund Management Services (the Fund) had taken over the handling of the claim 2 and had agreed to reimburse Buie for his "out-of-pocket expenditures" upon receipt of satisfactory documentation, but refused to reimburse Blue Cross/Blue Shield, asserting that it "does not reimburse third-party providers under any circumstances."
Buie again sought an order from the Commission requiring the Fund to pay his reimbursement claims. The chief deputy commissioner refused Buie's request, stating that the Commission did not have jurisdiction to decide the dispute because it "involves interpreting Code Sections 38.2-1600 et seq." and because "the rights of the claimant are not at stake and therefore the litigants must resort to the common-law remedies." Following Buie's request for review, the Commission reversed the decision of the chief deputy commissioner and determined that it had jurisdiction to enforce its awards and "to order reimbursement of those payments both to Blue Cross and to the claimant." The Commission remanded the matter for a hearing. On January 21, 1993, the day after the Commission issued its opinion, the Fund paid Buie $1,897.35 as reimbursement of his out-of-pocket medical expenses.
On remand, the deputy commissioner held that the Fund was also required to reimburse Blue Cross/Blue Shield. This determination was affirmed by the full Commission in an opinion issued November 5, 1993. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Commission. Bogle Dev. Co. v. Buie, 19 Va.App. 370, 451 S.E.2d 682 (1994). Bogle and the Fund filed a petition for appeal in this Court. Finding that the petition presented matters of significant precedential value, we awarded Bogle and the Fund an appeal. Code § 17-116.07(B).
Bogle and the Fund raise five assignments of error. Under our analysis, however, the dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the Commission's jurisdiction over this controversy ceased when the Fund reimbursed Buie for his out-of-pocket medical expenses. Bogle and the Fund assert that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the Commission had subject matter jurisdiction to consider Buie's request for reimbursement of Blue Cross/Blue Shield because, after the Fund paid Buie for his out-of-pocket payments for his medical expenses, no issues regarding the claimant Buie remained before the Commission. Thus, they conclude, the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the Commission's order that the Fund reimburse Blue Cross/Blue Shield must be vacated. We agree and, for the reasons stated below, will reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Code § 65.2-700 vests the Commission with jurisdiction to determine all questions "arising under" the Virginia Workers' Compensation Act. This grant of subject matter jurisdiction includes the authority of the Commission to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roth v. Illinois Ins. Guar. Fund
...Guaranty Association. MacDougall, slip op. at 7-8. In rendering its decision, the MacDougall court relied on Bogle Development Co., Inc. v. Buie, 250 Va. 431, 463 S.E.2d 467 (1995). In Buie, the plaintiff was injured on the job and received workers' compensation benefits from his employer's......
-
Miller v. Potomac Hosp. Foundation
...the authority of the Commission to enforce its orders and to resolve coverage and payment disputes." Bogle Development Co. v. Buie, 250 Va. 431, 434, 463 S.E.2d 467, 468 (1995). Code § 65.2-714(A) provides the commission exclusive jurisdiction over all disputes concerning payment of the fee......
-
Chester v. Redifer, Record No. 0166-09-2 (Va. App. 11/24/2009)
...the employer or another insurer arise under the Act insofar as they affect the rights of an injured employee. Bogle Dev. Co. v. Buie, 250 Va. 431, 434, 463 S.E.2d 467, 468 (1995). Further, Code § 65.2-705(A) provides that the commission shall "review the evidence or, if deemed advisable, . ......
-
Ceres Marine Terminals v. Armstrong
...(holding that a medical bill is prima facie evidence that the charges were reasonable and necessary), rev'd on other grounds, 250 Va. 431, 463 S.E.2d 467 (1995); Arthur Larson & Lex K. Larson, Larson's Workers' Compensation § 130.06[3][e] n. 79 (2010) (similarly describing a medical bill as......