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...
An Ohio appellate court ruled recently that a trial court’s refusal to apply the special firefighter’s presumption contained in Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4123.68(W) to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) was not error, in spite of the employee’s contention that ALS should be considered a “cardiovascular, pulmonary, or respiratory disease" because it usually caused death by weakening a person's muscles to the point that he or she could no longer breathe. The appellate court observed that both experts testified that the employee’s ALS was a neurological disease.
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 Rusin v. Buehrer, 2017-Ohio-8411, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 4803 (Nov. 3, 2017)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 52.07.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law