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 federal district court, construing Illinois law, held in relevant part that a plaintiff had failed to make out a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge where her firing occurred some four years after she had filed her workers' compensation claim and where the proferred reason for the firing was the plaintiff's tardiness for work, disruptive behavior, and failure to follow other employer protocols. Plaintiff had initially filed a notice of injury following an incident in which she alleged she had been accidentally stuck with a needle. She contended that she suffered, inter alia, from PTSD because of the worry associated with the needle ***. The employer denied the claim and, according to the appellate court, the plaintiff did not pursue any sort of administrative review. Here, the passage of time between the injury/claim and the firing was crucial to the employer's defense and the primary reason the court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint.
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 Strong v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Labs., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19564 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 2, 2020)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 104.07.
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.