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 Nevada Supreme Court held that a self-employed delivery driver who contracted with FedEx Home Delivery for one of its routes was entitled to TTD benefits in spite of his lack of a “salary” in a traditional sense. The driver acknowledged that he continued to receive the same compensation from FedEx following his work-related accident. He argued, however, that he had to hire and pay a replacement driver during the period he could not work and that his income had been diminished in such a fashion that he qualified for TTD benefits. The court agreed and indicated the appeals officer had erred when she concluded that she could not compute the driver’s earnings. She should have taken into account his business income and expenses. Too much attention had been paid to the issue of the self-employed driver’s salary.
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. Bracketed citations link to lexis.com.
See Mensah v. CorVel Corp., 2015 Nev. LEXIS 64, 131 Nev. Adv. Rep. 60 (Aug. 6, 2015) [2015 Nev. LEXIS 64, 131 Nev. Adv. Rep. 60 (Aug. 6, 2015)]
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 93.01 [93.01]
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see http://www.workcompwriter.com/average-wage-calculation-must-be-computed-for-nevada-self-employed-fedex-driver/
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site