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 definition of “employee” contained within the Massachusetts independent contractor statute (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 149, § 148B), does not displace the definition of “employee” contained in the state’s workers’ compensation law (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 152, § 1). Accordingly, an administrative judge properly concluded that the claimant was an independent contractor where the claimant supplied all necessary instruments to complete her job, purchased her own independent contractor work insurance, and filed taxes as an independent contractor.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is the co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.
See Camargo’s Case, 2018 Mass. LEXIS 328 (May 10, 2018)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 60.02.
Source:Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law