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...
In spite of the deference afforded West Virginia's Workers' Compensation Board of Review when it comes to fact-finding, the state's Supreme Court, in a memorandum decision, reversed the Board's decision that awarded benefits for a worker's bilateral rotator cuff tears. Noting that the worker's primary physician had been the only physician to opine that the worker's compensable injury resulted in bilateral rotator cuff tears, the Court pointed to the same doctor's deposition, in which he had indicated it was very difficult for him to determine if the rotator cuff tears were the result of degeneration or trauma. The Court also noted that the physician testified that he usually referred patients to a specialist to make the causation determination. Given such guarded testimony, in the face of multiple other medical experts, including one who performed an independent medical evaluation of the worker, who did not tie the workers' injury to his rotator cuff tears, the Court said there was insufficient support for the Board's findings. The matter was remanded for reinstatement of the earlier decision denying benefits.
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 West Va. Univ. v. Shaffer, 2020 W. Va. LEXIS 525 (July 9, 2020)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 128.03.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see
Sign up for the free LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation enewsletter at www.lexisnexis.com/wcnews.