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...
Oakland, CA -- The California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) has issued the 2025 assessments that workers’ compensation insurers are required to collect from policyholders to cover the...
Oakland – Alex Swedlow has announced his plans to retire as President of the Oakland-based California Workers' Compensation Institute (CWCI) effective August 2025. Mr. Swedlow’s retirement...
Oakland - A new California Workers’ Compensation Institute (CWCI) analysis that examines how medical inflation impacts allowable fees under the California workers’ compensation Official Medical...
By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board It’s a problem. Petitions for Reconsideration (Recon) are losing their way and delaying their arrival...
A defendant's contention that as an employer it was immune from tort liability in a civil action filed against it by an employee did not speak to the Washington trial court's subject matter jurisdiction, held a state appellate court. Accordingly, its motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) was improperly granted by the trial court. Following a lengthy procedural discussion, the appellate court held that the trial court should either have treated the motion as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion [e.g., for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted] or denied the Rule 12(b)(1) on its merits.
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 Boudreaux v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 2019 Wash. App. LEXIS 2262 (Aug. 26, 2019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 100.01.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see