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...
A tort action filed by a worker who had been assigned to a firm that utilized forklifts in its warehouse area cannot proceed since the worker's exclusive remedy was pursuant to the New Jersey Workers' Compensation Act, held a state appellate court. The staffing agreement executed by the staffing company and the borrowing employer indicated the latter assumed control of the activities of the leased employees. The worker was injured while riding on the back of the forklift as it was being operated by another worker. Evidence suggested that although this practice violated OSHA standards, it was nevertheless common at the warehouse. The court also agreed the injured worker had not stated a claim for intentional injury under New Jersey's "substantial certainty" rule.
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 Hocutt v. Minda Supply Co., 2020 N.J. Super. LEXIS 201 (Aug. 7, 2020)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 100.01.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see
Sign up for the free LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation enewsletter at www.lexisnexis.com/wcnews.