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...
Reversing the state’s Court of Civil Appeals, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma has reinstated a decision by a three-judge panel of the Workers’ Compensation Court that earlier held a workers’ compensation claimant was entitled to additional compensation following a freakish accident that occurred while the claimant was receiving medical treatment for an earlier work-related injury. The claimant, who sustained a compensable 2008 injury to various body parts, including the left knee and cervical spine, had sought treatment in 2012 for continued cervical discomfort. She traveled to a medical facility, underwent a steroid epidural injection to her cervical spine, and suffered additional injuries when being wheeled into the recovery area. Medical personnel had placed her in a wheelchair without foot rests in spite of the fact that she was still partially under sedation. As they wheeled her to recovery, her feet drug on the floor, her knees went underneath the wheelchair, and she was suddenly thrown forward, causing additional injury to her knee. The employer contended the actions of the medical personnel constituted an intervening action, but the Workers’ Compensation Court—and the Supreme Court—disagreed.
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
See City of Tulsa v. Hodge, 2018 OK 65, 2018 Okla. LEXIS 68 (Sept. 11, 2018)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 10.09.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see