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...
The language in Kan. Stat. Ann. 2019 Supp. § 44-510e(a)(2)(B) requiring use of the 6th Edition of the American Medical Association's Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment should reasonably be interpreted as a "guideline," and not a "mandate," held the Supreme Court of Kansas. Under the statute, the injured employee was nevertheless required to establish his or her level of impairment by "competent medical evidence." The Kansas high court accordingly found that the state's Court of Appeals had erred when it struck down as unconstitutional the use of the 6th Edition of the Guides. Speaking for the Court, Justice Stegall stressed that "on the way to its conclusion" that the language requiring that impairment ratings for injuries occurring on and after January 1, 2015, be based on the Sixth Edition was unconstitutional, the panel interpreted the statute as doing away with the requirement that the percentage of functional impairment the employee sustained on account of the injury must be established by competent medical evidence. No such change had occurred.
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 Johnson v. United States Food Serv., 2021 Kan. LEXIS 2 (Jan. 8, 2021)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 80.07.
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.