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...
Oakland, CA -- The California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) has issued the 2025 assessments that workers’ compensation insurers are required to collect from policyholders to cover the...
Oakland – Alex Swedlow has announced his plans to retire as President of the Oakland-based California Workers' Compensation Institute (CWCI) effective August 2025. Mr. Swedlow’s retirement...
Oakland - A new California Workers’ Compensation Institute (CWCI) analysis that examines how medical inflation impacts allowable fees under the California workers’ compensation Official Medical...
By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board It’s a problem. Petitions for Reconsideration (Recon) are losing their way and delaying their arrival...
An Iowa workers’ compensation claimant was entitled to alternate medical care under Iowa Code § 85.27, in spite of his refusal to attend an independent medical examination (IME) proposed by the employer to determine if the additional treatment was related to the original injury, held a state appellate court. The court stressed the two statutes, § 85.27 related to alternate care and Iowa Code § 85.39(1), which generally requires a claimant to attend an IME, served separate purposes. Here the employer had admitted the injury was compensable. The worker had established the need for alternate care under the statute. That he refused to attend the IME did not impact the request for alternate care.
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 Harris Steel Group, Inc. v. Botkin, 2020 Iowa App. LEXIS 40 (Jan. 9, 2020)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 10.10.
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.