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...
Quoting Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, and reiterating the usual, “two-cause” rule: that where a work-related disability combines with a nonwork-related disability to prevent the injured worker from continuing to work, the employer is responsible for the entire disability, the Supreme Court of Virginia held that nevertheless, under the facts of the case, the injured worker was not entitled to total disability benefits since his actual disability was caused by kidney failure related to a preexisting condition unrelated to his work and not by a work-related injury to his arm. The Court stressed that the “two-cause” rule did not apply since the worker’s disability did not have two causes, but only one, which was not connected to the employment.
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 Carrington v. Aquatic Co., 2019 Va. LEXIS 80 (July 18, 2019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 46.03.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see