By Hon. Robert G. Rassp, Presiding Judge, WCAB Los Angeles, California Division of Workers’ Compensation Disclaimer: The material and any opinions contained in this article are solely those of...
Oakland, CA – Migraine Drugs represented less than 1% of all prescriptions dispensed to California injured workers in 2023 but they consumed 4.7% of workers’ compensation drug payments, a nearly...
COMPLEX EMPLOYMENT ISSUES FOR CALIFORNIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION A new softbound supplement to Rassp & Herlick, California Workers’ Compensation Law 284 pages PIN #0006801214509 For...
By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Just when you thought the right of “due process” was on the brink of destruction, the legislature...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Over the past several decades California has implemented broad legislative...
A workers’ compensation insurer for a Tennessee employer, who sought utilization review regarding two trigger point injections, totaling $187, to treat an injured worker’s back pain and who stood its ground when the UR provider opined that the injections were medically unnecessary, has been ordered to pay the worker’s lawyer more than $27,000 in attorney’s fees and expenses following a trial court’s decision that the injections were reasonable and necessary to treat the worker’s injury. The Special Appeals Panel of the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision and noted that early on in the dispute, the worker’s attorney had offered to waive his fees if the insurer would pay the claim. Also important to the decision was the fact that prior to its objection to the trigger point injections, the insurer had approved and paid for a number of other such injections.
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 Grissom v. UPS, 2017 Tenn. LEXIS 4 (Jan. 9, 2017)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 133.02.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see