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 Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board
Early in the COVID-19 pandemic we learned that nursing care facilities...
Home Health Assessment: When Can a Defendant Use Labor Code Section 4050 to Compel an Evaluation?
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’...
By Julius Young, Richard M. Jacobsmeyer, and Barry D. Bloom, Co-Editors-in-Chief, Herlick, California Workers’ Compensation Handbook
This 2024 edition is the 43rd edition of Herlick, California...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES
Vol. 88, No. 10 October 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...
Under Florida’s one-time change of physician statute, § 440.13(2)(f), Fla. Stat., a judge of compensation claims was required to appoint an EMA to resolve a conflict in the medical evidence where an injured worker was dissatisfied with the medical opinion of the employer/carrier’s authorized physician and then, when the carrier did not immediately provide an alternate physician, sought medical care on his own and that second physician’s opinion disagreed with the first. The JCC had ruled that the second physician was not “authorized” under the statute until the JCC’s final ruling, thus obviating the requirement that an EMA be appointed. The appellate court disagreed. The instant that the JCC ruled that the second physician was an authorized physician, that ruling retroactively required the JCC to address the employer’s EMA request.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the co-Editor-in-Chief and 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 ABM Indus. v. Valencia, 2021 Fla. App. LEXIS 13480 (1st DCA Sept. 29, 2021)
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.