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...
Oakland, CA -- The California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) has issued the 2025 assessments that workers’ compensation insurers are required to collect from policyholders to cover the...
Oakland – Alex Swedlow has announced his plans to retire as President of the Oakland-based California Workers' Compensation Institute (CWCI) effective August 2025. Mr. Swedlow’s retirement...
Oakland - A new California Workers’ Compensation Institute (CWCI) analysis that examines how medical inflation impacts allowable fees under the California workers’ compensation Official Medical...
By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board It’s a problem. Petitions for Reconsideration (Recon) are losing their way and delaying their arrival...
Where a welder, who was living in North Carolina, received a communication from her union hall, which was located in Oklahoma, that she should report for an assignment in Huntsville, Texas and where, upon arrival in Texas, the welder was required to undergo a drug test and complete various forms—including an authorization for a background check—before she could begin working, under North Carolina’s “last act” test, her employment contract was made in Texas, and not in North Carolina. The North Carolina Industrial Commission did not have jurisdiction to hear her injury claim since her injury occurred outside North Carolina. The court noted that had she not undergone the drug test, she would not have been hired. Moreover, she began work within to hours of taking the test. Submission to the drug test was more than an administrative formality. There was the risk that she would not pass the test. The binding contract did not take place in North Carolina.
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.
See Holmes v. Associated Pipe Line Contrs., 2017 N.C. App. LEXIS 52 (Feb. 7, 2017)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 143.03.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law