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 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