Here's an interesting Board panel decision about a long-standing guardian ad litem who continued to represent the applicant after that party reached the age of majority. The WCAB said that the guardian...
Oakland – A new California Workers’ Compensation Institute (CWCI) study finds that average paid losses on California workers’ compensation lost-time claims fell immediately after legislative...
By Thomas A. Robinson, Co-Editor-in-Chief, Workers’ Compensation Emerging Issues Analysis (LexisNexis) As we move through the third decade of the twenty-first century, the United States remains...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Industrially injured workers in California are entitled to receive...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 88, No. 9 September 2023 A Report of En Banc and Significant Panel Decisions of the WCAB and Selected Court Opinions of Related Interest, With a Digest of WCAB Decisions...
An Alabama appellate court affirmed an award for a prescription medication in the form of a “time release” medication for erectile dysfunction that an employee contended was associated with his use of prescription narcotics to manage pain in spite of a state Department of Labor rule [Rule 480–5–5-.15(15), Ala. Admin. Code] that generally limited coverage to treat “organic erectile dysfunction” resulting from “a definitive organic disorder.” The employer contended that the rule, which also generally denied coverage for dysfunction related to psychological or psychiatric reasons did not provide for benefits to the employee since he did not suffer from “organic impotence.” The appellate court disagreed with the employer, noting that Ala. Code § 25–5–77(a) made the employer responsible for reasonably necessary medical treatment of conditions that were caused by the accident arising out of and in the course of the worker’s employment. That was so, notwithstanding the blanket prohibition in Rule 480–5–5-.15(15) on treating erectile dysfunction that was not considered to be an “organic.” The court observed that other than its reliance on the rule, the employer did not contend that the specific treatment prescribed to the employee was not reasonably necessary to treat a medical condition resulting from the accident arising out of and in the course of the employment.
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
See Ex parte Ward Int’l, 2015 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 205 (Sept. 4, 2015)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 94.03
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law.