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...
A Pennsylvania appellate court held that a compromise and release (C&R) agreement may not be employed to avoid the procedures in the state’s Workers’ Compensation Act for challenging a provider's invoice or a fee review determination that the invoice must be paid. That is because the parties to a C&R agreement can bind each other; they cannot release themselves from liability to a person or entity who is not a party. Thus, where claimant and the insurer entered into a C&R agreement that provided for payment of all “reasonable, necessary and related medical expenses incurred before the hearing date,” and further provided that no benefits would be paid for any compounded prescription cream, the insurer could not refuse to pay a pharmacy $6,644.30, plus interest, for a compound prescription cream that was prescribed prior to the hearing date on the C&R agreement. The court noted that one year earlier, the insurer had sought utilization review regarding the identical compound cream and the utilization review organization determined that the cream prescribed to Claimant was reasonable and necessary to treat Claimant's accepted work injury. To the extent the insurer desired to challenge the treatment as neither reasonable nor necessary, it had to see UR under the Act.
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 Armour Pharmacy v. Bureau of Workers' Comp. Fee Review Hearing Office (National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford), 2018 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 368 (Aug. 7, 2018)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 94.02.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law