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 finding by New York’s Workers’ Compensation Board that surgery related to an injured employee’s back condition should not be approved was error, held a state appellate court, where the Board’s decision (affirming that of a WCLJ) was based upon two medical reports offered by the employer, but as to which the employee had no opportunity to submit contradictory evidence or even to cross-examine the doctors, said the appellate court. The court also noted that the scope of the WCLJ’s hearing had been limited to discussion of whether claimant had sustained a further causally related disability. That issue and the issue of whether the claimant was entitled to surgery were separate disputes. The case was remitted for further consistent proceedings.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the co-Editor-in-Chief and 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 Matter of Ozoria v. Advantage Mgt. Ass’n, 2021 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3222 (3d Dept., May 13, 2021)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 127.11.
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.