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...
Under the one-subject rule, set forth in the Ohio Constitution [art. II, § 15(D)], no bill may contain more than one “subject” and that subject must be clearly expressed in the bill’s title. An Ohio appellate court held that the portion of the 2012 “Mid-Biennium Budget Review Bill” [H.B. 487] that amended the period for paying scheduled loss benefits to injured workers under Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4123.57(B) violated the one-subject rule. Prior to the passage of H.B. 487, the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation allowed injured workers to be paid the entire scheduled loss benefit in a lump sum rather than on a weekly basis over the full number of weeks specified by statute. H.B. 487 changed that, dictating that scheduled loss payments must be issued in weekly installments. The appellate court held the amendment to § 4123.57(B) lacked any relationship to the other wide-ranging provisions in the 1,788-page bill. The amendment accordingly violated the one subject rule.
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 Kljun v. Morrison, 2016-Ohio–2939 (Ct. App., May 12, 2016)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 80.05.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law