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 Appeals Board panel decisions that rescind a WCJ’s decision and...
Board Panel Opinion Provides a Succinct Explanation By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board The process for...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 89, No. 4 April 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 Several months ago, an article in LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation...
Where a post-injury drug test could not be offered as evidence because it had not been verified according to the requirements described in La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1081, it would also be improper to allow the use of the test to establish a fraud defense under La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1208, held a Louisiana appellate court. The court said it would be illogical to prohibit the unconfirmed drug test to be used to deny benefits under one statutory provision only to allow it to disqualify a claimant from receiving benefits under another.
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 Parson v. Truck Parts & Equip., Inc., 2019-00743 (La. 10/01/19), 2019 La. LEXIS 2437 (Oct. 1, 2019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 36.01.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see