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...
Building on an earlier decision in which the Ohio Supreme Court had determined that the Ohio contractor’s self-insurance plan [see Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4123.35(O)] provided immunity not only to the self-insuring general contractor, but also to enrolled subcontractors from tort claims brought by employees of other enrolled subcontractors [see Stolz I, 146 Ohio St.3d 281, 2016-Ohio-1567, 55 N.E.3d 1082, at ¶ 8], the state's high court found that the law does not violate right-to-remedy, right-to-jury, or equal-protection provisions of the Ohio Constitution.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the 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 Stolz v. J & B Steel Erectors, 2018-Ohio-5088, 2018 Ohio LEXIS 3011 (Dec. 20, 2018)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 111.04.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see