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 safety and security officer, who filed a claim seeking to recover workers’ compensation benefits for alleged Lyme disease almost six years after he filed a report with his employer indicating he had suffered two tick bites, failed to establish a causal connection between his alleged condition and the workplace, held an appellate court in New York. Noting that the officer had tested negative for Lyme disease on three separate occasions and observing that the claimant’s own physician acknowledged that it was unlikely that someone with Lyme disease would be asymptomatic for more than five years after the tick bite, the appellate court held there was substantial evidence to support the Board’s denial of the claim.
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 Decandia v. Pilgrim Psychiatric Ctr., 2021 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4516 (July 15, 2021)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 51.02.
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.