By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board “Three’s a Crowd” in QME Panel Selection In the case of Hobbs v. N. Valley Elecs....
By Christopher Mahon, LexisNexis Legal Insights Contributing Author A study published in July 2024 by Occupational and Environmental Medicine analyzed U.S. workers’ compensation claims for mild...
LexisNexis has selected some of the top “noteworthy” panel decisions issued by the California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board during the period June through December 2024. Several...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 89, No. 12 December 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...
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...
While the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act provides, under some circumstances, for the imposition of penalties for the delay in paying medical expenses and other benefits, there is no statutory authority for imposing penalties for an alleged delay in authorizing medical treatment, held a state appellate court. An arbitrator found that the employer’s initial refusal to authorize treatment (the decision was later reversed) had not been made in good faith and imposed a $6,900 penalty pursuant to 820 ILCS 305/19(l) “for without good and just cause failing, neglecting, refusing, and unreasonably delaying payments under section 8(a) of the Act (820 ILCS 305/8(a) (West 2016)), i.e., authorizing the surgery” [emphasis added]. In addition, the arbitrator found respondent liable for attorney fees in the amount of $1380 pursuant to section 820 ILCS 305/16. A divided Commission reversed. The appellate court stressed that the statute spoke to delays in payment of benefits, not the delay. The court added that it was “not unsympathetic” to claimant’s concerns, but added that it simply could not read into the statute any exceptions, limitations, or conditions that the legislature did not intend.
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 O'Neil v. Ill. Workers' Comp. Comm'n, 2020 IL App (2d) 190427WC (Feb. 4, 2020)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 135.01.
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.