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...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES
Vol. 89, No. 2 February 2024
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. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board
In the 1785 poem, To a Mouse , Robert Burns observed that the best...
By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board
The struggle is real. How and when should Workers’ Compensation Judges (WCJs) apply the statute...
Oakland, CA - The number of inpatient hospitalizations in the California workers’ compensation system declined 51.1% between 2012 and 2022, spurred by declining claim volume, technological advances...
A Georgia appellate court held the doctrine of res judicata could not be utilized by the employer to block consideration of whether an injured employee should be potentially treated with a spinal cord stimulator in spite of an earlier ruling by an ALJ that the evidence did not establish that such a stimulator was medically reasonable for the employee. Observing that the course of medical treatment in workers' compensation claims was generally fluid and could evolve over time, particularly where, as here, there had been a change in the authorized treating physician, the court reversed a decision of the state superior court that found the earlier ALJ's order was binding. The appellate court also stressed that the earlier ALJ order had denied the request for a spinal cord stimulator at that time.
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 Trejo-Valdez v. Associated Agents, 2020 Ga. App. LEXIS 631 (Oct. 29, 2020)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 127.07.
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.