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...
While the normal rule in most jurisdictions is that a judge or board may not apportion a claimant’s PPD award based upon a preexisting condition that did not prevent the employee from effectively performing his or her job duties at the time of a subsequent work-related injury, New York has an exception when it comes to schedule loss of use (“SLU”) cases. Based on that exception, a New York appellate court affirmed a finding by the state’s Workers’ Compensation Board apportioning an injured employee’s SLU injury to the right leg between the employee’s February 2007 work-related injury and his 2005 nonwork-related injury. A medical expert opined that the employee’s 2005 surgical procedure involved the excision of the meniscus in the employee’s right knee. That procedure, standing alone, would have resulted in a 7.5 percent SLU finding and would have been amenable to a scheduled award. Apportionment was, therefore, appropriate in the case.
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
See Matter of the Claim of Sanchez v. STS Steel, 2017 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7001 (Oct. 5, 2017)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 90.03.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see