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...
Stressing that allowing a workers’ compensation insurer to intervene in a third-party civil action filed by an injured worker against the purported tortfeasor would not cause delay and would not necessarily cause confusion among potential jurors should the case ever go to trial, a federal district court allowed the requested intervention on discretionary grounds. The court observed that the insurer had not shown that it should be allowed to intervene as a matter of right but indicated further that since the case was still in its early stages and the insurer had apparently expended considerable sums in the underlying workers’ compensation claim, it had a sufficient interest in the civil action to warrant intervention, due to its subrogation rights under the Missouri Workers’ Compensation Act.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the co-Editor-in-Chief and 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 Henderson v. Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75730 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 20, 2021)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 116.05.
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.