In re Favor

• Decision Date: 19 October 1926
• Citation: In re Favor, 257 Mass. 267, 153 N.E. 542 (Mass. 1926)
• Parties: FAVOR'S CASE.
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

257 Mass. 267

153 N.E. 542

FAVOR'S CASE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampden.

Oct. 19, 1926.

Appeal from Superior Court, Hampden County; E. T. Broadhurst, Judge.

Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Minnie Favor, compensation claimant, opposed by the Bozart Rug Company, the employer, and the Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation, the insurer. A lump sum settlement was approved by the Industrial Accident Board, and W. Edward Gorman, M. D., applied for an allowance of a further sum for medical services. Finding of the Industrial Accident Board denying claim was affirmed by the superior court, and W. Edward Gorman appeals. Affirmed.

H. Moran, of Springfield, for appellant.

Sawyer, Hardy, Stone & Morrison, of Bostion (Gay Gleason, of Boston, of counsel), for insurer.

CROSBY, J.

This is an appeal by a physician from a decree of the superior court affirming a finding of the Industrial Accident Board. G. L. c. 152.

The employee received an injury arising out of and in the course of her employment on December 28, 1922. Thereafter she was paid some compensation, and on October 26, 1923, a lump sum settlement of $425 was approved by the board. This sum, together with what she had previously received, made a total payment of $631.40. The agreement for settlement so made recited that the payments were received ‘in compromise settlement, including hospital and medical expenses.’ The appellant, Dr. W. Edward Gorman, treated the employee for her injuries for which he charged $127. His last treatment as appears from his bill was on April 5, 1923. He testified that he first learned of the settlement in September, 1924. He first requested a hearing before the board upon the allowance of his bill in January, 1926, and a hearing was held on March 2, 1926; the board decided ‘that under all the circumstances existing in this case the present petitioner's claim should be denied.’ This finding in substance and effect was affrmed by a decree thereafter entered in the superior court, from which decree the physician has appealed.

G. L. c. 152, § 13, provides in part that fees of physicians for services under the chapter ‘shall be subject to the approval of the department.’ The statute further provides that:

‘If the insurer and any physician * * * fail to agree as to the amount to be paid for such services, either party may notify the department, which may thereupon assign the case for hearing by a member thereof. The member shall report the facts to the department for decision. * * *’

It is provided by section 30...