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...
In a case of first impression, the Supreme Court of South Dakota held that the state's Department of Labor had erred when it determined that there had been no activity in the record of a case for more than one year, such that the claim could be dismissed pursuant to S.D. Admin. R. 47:03:01:09, South Dakota's "no progress" rule. The high court noted that the record was clear that the claimant had engaged in a vocational rehabilitation program less than five months before the employer filed it motion to dismiss. Noting further that neither "activity" nor "good cause" were defined within the rule, the Court said the Department of Labor and the Circuit Court that had affirmed the Department's decision had read the rule too narrowly. The Department had concentrated too much on whether the claimant's counsel had been responsive to counsel for the employer and not enough on what the claimant had been doing outside the actual court record.
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 LaPlante v. GGNSC, Madison S.D., LLC, 2020 SD 13, 2020 S.D. LEXIS 27 (Mar. 18, 2020)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 126.13.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see
Sign up for the free LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation enewsletter at www.lexisnexis.com/wcnews.