{
  "id": 1675918,
  "name": "Dr. L. E. HULVEY v. KELLWOOD COMPANY et al",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hulvey v. Kellwood Co.",
  "decision_date": "1977-12-19",
  "docket_number": "77-266",
  "first_page": "564",
  "last_page": "567",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "262 Ark. 564"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "559 S.W.2d 153"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "224 Ark. 387",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1646568
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1954,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/224/0387-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 287,
    "char_count": 3929,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.891,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.474152507693201e-07,
      "percentile": 0.659835766486772
    },
    "sha256": "4582046664a4cdd763a3ade3c480d02f5229cb3f556aa0280077b525f33069d7",
    "simhash": "1:cce33d8b1a8b0c27",
    "word_count": 635
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:27:42.068781+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "We agree. Harris, C.J., and Fogleman and Hoi/r, JJ."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Dr. L. E. HULVEY v. KELLWOOD COMPANY et al"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "George Rose Smith, Justice.\nMary Tankersley filed a workmen\u2019s compensation claim for an admittedly compensable injury. Her treating physician, Dr. Hulvey, a chiropractor who was represented by counsel, submitted a bill for $4,-446 for services rendered over a period of 14 months. The insurance carrier questioned the reasonableness of Dr. Hulvey\u2019s bill, which was accordingly submitted to the Commission for its approval. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 81-1311 (Repl. 1976). The Commission found the charges to be unreasonable, allowed 60% of the amount sought, but refused to award Dr. Hulvey an attorney\u2019s fee because the matter had been pursued by the doctor and his attorney rather than by the claimant and her attorney. On appeal the circuit court affirmed the 60% award, but found that an attorney\u2019s fee was recoverable and remanded the cause to the Commission for its determination of a proper fee. An appeal and cross appeal bring both points up for review.\nThe Commission\u2019s action in reducing Dr. Hulvey\u2019s claim by 40% is supported by substantial evidence. When the insurance carrier first protested the bill, its reasonableness was considered by the Peer Review Committee of the Arkansas Chiropractic Association, of which Dr. Hulvey is a member. The committee unanimously found, after what appears to have been a fair hearing at which Dr. Hulvey appeared in person and by counsel, that there had been an over-utilization of services and excessive charges. The Commission\u2019s opinion recites that the Commission, after considering all the evidence in the case, including the Peer Review Committee\u2019s recommendation, found that the bill was unreasonable and should be reduced by 40%.\nWe do not agree with Dr. Hulvey\u2019s argument that, even though the proof justified the Commission\u2019s finding that the amount of the claim is unreasonable, the Commission nevertheless could not reduce the amount by 40% (or any other percentage) without expert testimony that the bill was excessive in precisely that ratio. Such a holding would shift the responsibility for determining the issue of reasonableness from the Commission, where the statute puts it, to the expert witnesses. There was much testimony about the charges made by various chiropractors. Given the Commission\u2019s undeniable authority to find that the charges were excessive, we cannot say that the actual 60% allowance is not supported by substantial evidence.\nThe circuit court was also right in finding that an attorney\u2019s fee should be allowed in a sum to be determined by the Commission. The statute refers to the allowance of \u201c[f]ees for legal services rendered in respect of a claim,\u201d \u00a781-1332. The same section goes on to set maximum limits in terms of graduated percentages of \u201ccompensation.\u201d We have held that medical services are a part of \u201ccompensation\u201d and that attorney\u2019s fees are recoverable with respect to such services. Ragon v. Great American Indemnity Co., 224 Ark. 387, 273 S.W. 2d 524 (1954). In that case, it is true, the claim for medical services had been presented by the claimant\u2019s attorney rather than by an attorney for the doctor or the hospital rendering the services. In the case at bar, inasmuch as a fee would have been recoverable if Dr. Hulvey\u2019s claim had been presented by the claimant\u2019s attorney, we see no difference in principle merely because the doctor was himself represented by counsel. Indeed, that seems to be the intent of the statute, which provides that reasonable charges for medical services, when approved by the Commission, \u201cshall be enforceable by the Commission in the same manner as is provided for the enforcement of compensation payments.\u201d \u00a7 81-1311.\nAffirmed.\nWe agree. Harris, C.J., and Fogleman and Hoi/r, JJ.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "George Rose Smith, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Henry A. Allen, II, for appellant.",
      "Friday, Edlredge & Clark, by: Frederick S. Ursery, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Dr. L. E. HULVEY v. KELLWOOD COMPANY et al\n77-266\n559 S.W. 2d 153\nOpinion delivered December 19, 1977\n(Division I)\nHenry A. Allen, II, for appellant.\nFriday, Edlredge & Clark, by: Frederick S. Ursery, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0564-01",
  "first_page_order": 600,
  "last_page_order": 603
}