![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
An award of benefits for an employee’s stress fracture in her right foot was appropriate, held a Mississippi appellate court, in spite of the fact that her physician had testified that the employee’s repetitive activity at work was a “possible” cause of her injury. The court stressed that such medical testimony had not stood alone; it was buttressed by other evidence that the stress fracture was not caused by any sort of traumatic or specific event and additional evidence to show that the employee had not engaged in other repetitive activity during the relevant time frame. The court reminded the employer that even “somewhat ambiguous” medical testimony was sufficient to support a finding of compensability as long as the relevant medical findings supported a causal connection.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the co-Editor-in-Chief and Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law(LexisNexis).
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.
See Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Loveless, 2021 Miss. App. LEXIS 75 (Feb. 23, 2021)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 130.06.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see
Sign up for the free LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation enewsletter at www.lexisnexis.com/wcnews.