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 burden of proof for showing a change in condition is on the party asserting the change. Accordingly, where it was undisputed that an employee sustained injuries in a work-related accident, but both the extent of her disability and the issue of resulting psychological injuries were disputed, such that the parties agreed to mediation, the employer could not, subsequent to settlement, seek to reopen her claim on the basis that she had not read the settlement agreement and further felt her attorney had not done his job properly. The employee did not demonstrate a change in circumstances. Nor did she establish a mistake in determination of fact. While the employee’s claimed she was entitled to benefits for a psychological injury, that issue was in dispute at the time of the settlement and the employee had presented no new evidence of any change.
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 Wright v. Minact Logistical Servs., LLC, 2018 Miss. App. LEXIS 211 (May 1, 2018)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 131.04.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law