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 Workers Compensation Commission, on remand, erred in holding that an employee successfully rebutted the presumption that she was entitled to no permanent disability as a result of her brief return to accommodated employment because the employee returned to work at the employer full-time with the same job duties and expectations as before and with no accommodations for more than seven months, neither the employee's for-cause termination nor her lack of a more advanced degree related to any incapacity to earn wages “because of injury” under Miss. Code Ann. § 71-3-3(i) (Rev. 2011), and the employee failed to present substantial evidence to rebut the presumption that she sustained no loss of wage-earning capacity.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the 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 Hudspeth Reg'l Ctr. v. Mitchell, 2019 Miss. App. LEXIS 179 (Apr. 30, 2019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 81.01.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law