![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.
Acknowledging that the statutory presumption of correctness afforded the opinion of an independent medical evaluator who had been selected from Tennessee's Medical Impairment Registry ("MIR") could be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence, an appeals panel of the Tennessee Supreme Court nevertheless held that the injured employee had offered no such clear and convincing evidence in the instant case. The mere showing that the MIR physician and the employee's physician disagreed as to the proper diagnosis in the case was insufficient to rebut the IME's findings [see Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-204(d)(5)].
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 Rodgers v. Rent-A-Center East, Inc., 2020 Tenn. LEXIS 280 (July 29, 2020)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 94.02.
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.