Administrative – Industrial Commission Fee Schedule – Hospitals & Ambulatory Surgical Centers
Teresa Bruno, Opinions Editor//November 21, 2017//
Surgical Care Affiliates, LLC v. North Carolina Industrial Commission (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-368-17, 12 pp.) (Wanda Bryant, J.) Appealed from Wake County Superior Court (Paul Ridgeway, J.) N.C. App.
Holding: The purpose of 2013 N.C. Sess. Laws ch. 410, § 33.(a)(1) is to contain medical care costs attributable to injured workers while reasonably reimbursing medical care providers for services. The Industrial Commission‘s inclusion of ambulatory surgical centers in the definition of “hospital,” thus subjecting petitioner to the “Medicare methodology for . . . hospital fee schedules” does not appear to frustrate this objective and may be construed in harmony with the reason for the session law.
We reverse the superior court’s decision that the session law did not authorize the Commission to adopt new maximum fees for ambulatory surgical centers.
The superior court referred to the Hospital Licensure Act, found in G.S. Chap. 131E, to define “hospital” as it was used in the session law, which concerns a fee schedule adopted by the Commission pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Act. On this basis, the court concluded “that hospitals are separate and legally distinct entities from ambulatory surgical centers.” We hold the court erred.
As that definition of “hospital” was essential to the lower court’s determination that the session law did not authorize the Commission to adopt new maximum fees for ambulatory surgical centers, we reverse the court’s decision and remand for entry of an order affirming the Commission’s declaratory ruling.
Legal Tech
- AI in practice: How new technology is affecting litigation practice
- Experts foresee legal malpractice risk for those who eschew AI
- Legal Decoder launches AI-powered billing analytics interface
Top Legal News
- Settlement may have mooted insurer’s coverage dispute
- Raleigh ed-tech company pays six figures to resolve EEOC disability discrimination charge
- EBay, former execs to pay $56M to settle couple’s harassment case
- ‘Don’t threaten our first responders’: Jackson sues FEMA again over withheld public safety funds
- 10 business development mistakes you can’t afford to make
- Meta disregarded its own research on teen harm, Tennessee tells jury
- Reputational management: Making your public statements as impactful and effective as possible
Commentary
- Legally Speaking: How communication failures turn disputes into lawsuits
- We tore out our own backup generator
- When is a PIP an adverse employment action?
- Legally Speaking: What spring can teach us about active listening
- A useful patent management government notice
- Opinion: NC judges have enormous power. Be sure to vote in November
- The third option: Why your best employees are quietly losing their edge
- AI divorce is real, but family law can still save itself




