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 Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Appeals Board panel decisions that rescind a WCJ’s decision and...
Board Panel Opinion Provides a Succinct Explanation By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board The process for...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 89, No. 4 April 2024 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. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Several months ago, an article in LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation...
The question of timely notice to the employer was not a jurisdictional question subject to de novo review, held the Supreme Court of South Carolina. Accordingly, where the Court of Appeals employed the de novo standard, instead of the substantial evidence standard to review a decision by the appellate panel that found the employee failed to provide timely notice of the injury, it committed error. The matter was remanded for a decision under the proper standard of review.
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 Nero v. South Carolina Dept. of Transp., 2018 S.C. LEXIS 35 (Apr. 4, 2018)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 130.01.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law