asserted to be conclusive of the matter. In response, Henderson filed a motion to compel Fleming to continue to pay for Henderson’s medical services and supplies. Henderson continued to receive medical treatment from Dr. Rayner during the pending motions filed with the Commission. Before a ruling had been made on the issue of whether Fleming was liable for Henderson’s continued medical services and supplies and without notice or authorization, Henderson sought and received further medical treatment from Dr. Whitecloud at the Tulane University Medical center in early 1994. ¶ 29. The Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission, pursuant to § 71-3-15(3), implemented a fee schedule which was in effect during this time. The pertinent portion of the fee schedule outlining the requi s.1975) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 32. However, in each of these instances the
holding that employers knowledge of employees injury followed by the employers failure to provide the necessary medical services sufficient to impose liability upon the employer for medical services selected by the employee holding that where the victim of a tortfeasor receives gratuitous medical services from a source wholly independent of the tortfeasor the value of the gratuitous medical services may not be deducted from the verdict for overall medical care received holding that employee was consumer of medical insurance purchased by employer for employees benefit holding that state medical director of prison medical services corporation was not final policymaker recognizing the importance of the employers knowledge of the disability