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...
Applying the 4-part test described in Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 34.01, et seq., a Tennessee appellate court affirmed a state trial court’s determination that an employer failed to show that one of its healthcare workers willfully violated the employer’s physical restraint policy in interacting with a resident at the employer’s therapeutic residential treatment facility. While the worker acknowledged that he knew about the employer’s policy that residents were to be free from restraint, the court held that the employer had failed to prove the fourth element of the Larsontest: that the employee’s action was more than a mere error in judgment, negligence, or even recklessness.
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 Tennessee Clinical Sch., LLC v. Johns, 2019 Tenn. LEXIS 295 (Aug. 2, 1019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 34.01.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see