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...
Utah Code Ann. § 35-1-65 (1982) (current version at Utah Code § 34A-2-410 (2016)), which provides that an injured worker who is temporarily totally disabled shall receive a specified amount of compensation per week, but that in no case shall compensation benefits exceed 312 weeks over a period of eight years from the date of the injury is not an unconstitutional statute of repose under the Open Courts Clause of the Utah Constitution, Utah Const. art. I, § 11, held the Supreme Court of Utah. Nor is it a statute of limitations. The only plausible challenge that the claimant for workers' compensation benefits could have raised was that § 35-1-65 was an inadequate substitute remedy for the loss of an injured employee's common law tort claim. The Court concluded that such a challenge failed, however, because the Utah Workers' Compensation Act—as a whole—was an adequate substitute remedy for the loss of such a tort claim.
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 Petersen v. Utah Labor Comm’n, 2017 UT 87, 2017 Utah LEXIS 203 (Dec. 1, 2017)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 80.03.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law