Falik v. Prince George's Hospital

WENNER, Judge. Upon this appeal from the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, we are asked whether the court properly affirmed an order of the Workers’ Compensation Commission which denied a physician’s claim for medical fees in excess of amounts prescribed by the Commission in its Guide of Medical and Surgical Fees. We shall answer the question in the affirmative. The facts are not in dispute.

Appellant, Joel L. Falik, is a physician who provided medical services and treatment to an employee of appellee, the Prince George’s County Hospi ⁵¹⁷ tal and Medical Center, for an injury suffered by the employee within the scope of Maryland’s Workmen’s Compensation Act. Ann.Code of Md. (1957, 1985 Repl.Vol., 1988 Cum.Supp.) Art. 101, § 1 et seq. Appellant billed appellee $4,120 for the services. Appellee, in accordance with the fees prescribed by the Guide of Medical and Surgical Fees (Fee Guide), paid appellant only $1,778.

Appellant petitioned the Workers’ Compensation Commission for the balance of his fees, and the Commission denied the petition. Undaunted by that rebuff, appellant appealed to the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County. The circuit court affirmed the Commission. It reasoned that, because the fees for medical services and treatment were subject to regulation by the Commission, the Commission did not err in its ruling. 1 Discussion Section 37 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act requires that an employer provide an injured employee such medical treatment and services “as may be required by the Commission.” That section, in pertinent part, also provides: (c) Fees and charges. — All fees and other charges for such treatment and services shall be subject to regulation by the Commission, and shall be limited to such charges as prevail in the same community for similar treatment of injured persons of a like standard of living.

At least once every 2 years, the Commission shall review the allowable fees and other charges for completeness and reasonableness and shall make appropriate revisions to established guidelines. (e) Rules and regulations. — The Commission shall have full power to adopt rules and regulations with respect to furnishing medical, nurse, hospital services, ⁵¹⁸ and medicine to injured employees entitled thereto and to the payment therefor,____ Appellant contends that § 37(c) requires the Commission in every case to consider evidence of charges prevailing in the community where the medical services were rendered. Consequently, appellant posits that the circuit court erred when it affirmed the decision of the Commission. We see it differently.

The cardinal rule of statutory construction, of course, is to ascertain and carry out legislative intent. Jones v. State, 311 Md. 398, 405 , 535 A.2d 471 (1988). In that regard, the primary source of legislative intent is the language of the statute itself. Id.

And, where the language is clear and unambiguous, there is no need to go beyond the words of the statute to find its meaning. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company v. Bragg, 76 Md.App. 709, 716 , 548 A.2d 151 (1988). As we see it, the meaning of § 37(c), when read, as we must read it, together with the section as a whole, is clear. The Commission is empowered to promulgate rules and regulations for all fees and other charges for medical treatment and services.

Holy Cross Hospital v. Nichols, 290 Md. 149, 153 , 428 A.2d 447 (1981). While the rules and regulations must be reasonable as well as consistent with the spirit of the statute, the power to regulate, where conferred, is inherently broad. See, Sullivan v. Bd. of License Commissioners, 293 Md. 113, 121-122 , 442 A.2d 558 (1982). Indeed, illustrative of the intent to confer broad regulatory powers upon the Commission in the circumstances sub judice are both the grant of “full power” to adopt rules and regulations, and the subjection of “all fees and charges” to regulation.

Moreover, under a statute markedly similar to § 37, the power to regulate has been defined to include the authority to adopt a maximum fee schedule. Application of Idaho Hospital Ass’n, 73 Idaho 320 , 251 P.2d 538 (1952). ⁵¹⁹ Contrary to appellant's assertion, we do not read that part of § 87(c) limiting fees and charges to those that prevail in the same community as setting a standard for the Commission to apply on a case-by-case basis. Rather, we see the limiting language as establishing a ceiling on the Commission’s discretion to establish a schedule of fees and charges. 2 61 Op. Att’y Gen. 926, 981 (1976) (the statutorily prescribed standard of § 87(c) is that the schedule of fees and charges set by the Commission shall correspond with those prevailing in the same community for similar treatment of injured persons of a like standard of living.) See also Gilbert and Humphreys, Maryland Workers’ Compensation Handbook (1988), § 10.3 (medical fee schedules set forth the limit for which an employer can be held liable for a particular medical treatment and service).

While it is