LexisNexis has selected some recently issued noteworthy IMR decisions that illustrate the criteria that must be met to obtain authorization for a variety of different medical treatment modalities. LexisNexis...
By Christopher Mahon, LexisNexis Legal Insights Contributing Author A September 2024 study from the Workers Compensation Research Institute indicates that workers represented by an attorney in workers’...
By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board “Substantial Medical Evidence” is a ubiquitous catch-all phrase. When does it exist? When...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 90, No. 1 January 2025 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...
By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Cases of “first impression” seldom wander into our workers’ compensation world. When...
An Arkansas appellate court has affirmed a decision denying workers’ compensation benefits to a worker who fell as he descended a ladder on the basis that following the accident he tested positive for methamphetamine and that he failed to rebut the statutory presumption in Ark. Code Ann. § 11–9–102(4)(B)(iv) that the accident was substantially occasioned by the drugs. The court observed that although a technician testified he could not determine when the drugs were ingested or whether the worker was intoxicated, the presence of the drugs triggered the presumption. The worker and several others testified that he had not ingested methamphetamine near the time of the accident, but the ALJ specifically found the worker’s testimony not to be credible based, at least in part, on the worker’s past drug use and criminal conviction for intent to manufacture methamphetamine. Observing further that the phrase “substantially occasioned” required that there be a direct causal link between the use of alcohol (or illegal drugs) and the injury in order for the injury to be noncompensable. Evidence suggested no one else had ever fallen from the ladder. It was within the WCJ’s discretion to conclude that the ladder was not unsafe and was not the cause of the fall as he claimed.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is a leading commentator and expert on the law of workers’ compensation.
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance. Bracketed citations link to lexis.com.
See Reed v. Turner Indus., 2015 Ark. App. 43, 2015 Ark. App. LEXIS 59 (Jan. 28, 2015) [2015 Ark. App. 43, 2015 Ark. App. LEXIS 59 (Jan. 28, 2015)]
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 36.03 [36.03]
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site