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...
Finding a choice of law provision in a contract of sale between two businesses was unenforceable because Pennsylvania, the state where the fatal work-related injury occurred, had a “materially greater” connection to the matter than did Texas — the state whose law had been chosen in the contract— a federal district court accordingly applied Pennsylvania’s more restrictive law on employer indemnification and found that the defendant manufacturer of a hydraulic jack could not seek indemnification from the employer of a worker who sustained fatal injuries in a workplace accident. In Pennsylvania, an employer cannot be subject to indemnification unless it expressly waives its rights to workers’ compensation immunity. In Texas, the law is not so restrictive, allowing indemnification if more general language is used. The contract had a clause that met the Texas, but not the Pennsylvania test. While Texas had some interest in the dispute — the rig had been manufactured there by a Texas corporation — the court stressed the state in which the injury occurred has a “materially greater” interest.
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 Jones v. SWEPI L.P., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7390 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2020)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 144.02.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see
Sign up for the free LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation enewsletter at www.lexisnexis.com/wcnews.