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.
The burden of proof for showing a change in condition is on the party asserting the change. Accordingly, where it was undisputed that an employee sustained injuries in a work-related accident, but both the extent of her disability and the issue of resulting psychological injuries were disputed, such that the parties agreed to mediation, the employer could not, subsequent to settlement, seek to reopen her claim on the basis that she had not read the settlement agreement and further felt her attorney had not done his job properly. The employee did not demonstrate a change in circumstances. Nor did she establish a mistake in determination of fact. While the employee’s claimed she was entitled to benefits for a psychological injury, that issue was in dispute at the time of the settlement and the employee had presented no new evidence of any change.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is the co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.
See Wright v. Minact Logistical Servs., LLC, 2018 Miss. App. LEXIS 211 (May 1, 2018)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 131.04.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law