Thomas, Thomas & Hafer LLP

THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER LLP

Partnering Smart Solutions

Menu
  • About UsMENU
    • About the Firm
    • Recognition & Awards
    • Attorney Positions
    • Staff Positions
  • Our PeopleMENU
    • Our Attorneys
    • Our Paralegals
  • Practice Areas
  • News
  • Events
  • LocationsMENU
    • Allentown, PA
    • Ambler, PA
    • Baltimore, MD
    • Fairfax, VA
    • Hampton, NJ
    • Harrisburg, PA
    • Mount Laurel, NJ
    • New York, NY
    • Philadelphia, PA
    • Pittsburgh, PA
    • Richmond, VA
    • Washington, DC
    • Wilkes-Barre, PA

Partnering Smart Solutions

eNotes: Workers’ Compensation – November 2022 – Virginia

November 30, 2022

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Virginia Case Summary

Medical Management Intl. v. Jeffry
Virginia Court of Appeals
0363-22-4

Decided: November 1, 2022

A Carrier must reimburse out-of-pocket costs for Uber rides to medical appointments, even when Claimant did not inform the Carrier she would be using Uber, depriving them the opportunity of using a cheaper transportation service.

Background

Claimant suffered a compensable injury while working for her employer. Most of the time, Claimant would have her husband or a family member drive her to medical appointments. But when she could not find a ride, she would use Uber as a last resort. She used Uber for 44 visits, totaling $881.47. The Employer did not receive the transportation bills, and did not know the cost of transportation.

The Employer did not argue the charges were unreasonable or excessive. Rather, they argued they were not obligated to pay because they did not receive notice. The Deputy Commissioner denied the full Uber charges, instead awarding a reimbursement of the standard rate per mile, totaling $139.83. The Full Commission reversed, holding that lack of notice alone is not fatal to a claim for transportation costs. Claimant appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed, on different grounds. The Court instead found nothing in the Act requiring advance notice at all as a prerequisite for reimbursement. Implying a requirement would be inconsistent with the remedial purpose of the Act. The General Assembly provided notice requirements in other sections, like giving notice of the accident itself. Therefore, since the transportation reimbursement provisions of 65.2-603 do not contain an explicit requirement for notice, no notice is necessary.

Takeaway

When a Claimant begins seeking medical treatment, it is imperative you make clear that the carrier will provide transportation services. This will hopefully avoid this situation entirely. However, if you do see a Claimant who runs up transportation costs, you must argue that the total sums themselves are unreasonable, not that the Claimant did anything wrong procedurally.

Any questions regarding this case can be addressed to Mike Bliley at 571.464.0435 or mbliley@tthlaw.com.

RELATED PROFESSIONALS

RELATED LOCATIONS

  • Fairfax, VA
  • Richmond, VA

RELATED PRACTICE AREAS

  • Workers’ Compensation

Attorneys

Meet our team of attorneys.

Meet Our Attorneys

Practice Areas

Defending clients with professional integrity.

View Practice Areas

Offices

Explore our locations positioned to serve you.

Find a Location

© 2025 Thomas, Thomas & Hafer LLP | Disclaimer | Staff Login