LexisNexis has picked the top “noteworthy” panel decisions issued by the California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board during the period July through December 2014. You’ll find many helpful cases in this list, including a recent decision...
While impairment ratings under the federal Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act generally need not be comply with the AMA Guides, such is not the case for claims involving hearing loss and retiree benefits [see 33 U.S.C.S §§ 902(10), 908(c)(13)(E), 908...
Construing Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 101(3)(a)(I) and 101(3.7), pursuant to which impairment ratings in workers’ compensation claims must be “based on” the revised third edition of AMA Guides, a Colorado appellate court said that choice...
The language in Kan. Stat. Ann. 2019 Supp. § 44-510e(a)(2)(B) requiring use of the 6th Edition of the American Medical Association's Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment should reasonably be interpreted as a "guideline," and not a...
On Friday (August 3, 2018), the Court of Appeals of Kansas held the use of the AMA Guides (6th Edition) for determining impairment levels of injured workers under the Kansas Workers’ Compensation Act (“the Act”) was unconstitutional as a violation of due process...
In a noteworthy panel decision, the WCAB in Taina v. County of Santa Clara/Valley Medical Center , 2018 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS --, affirmed the WCJ and held that the WCJ did not err by determining the level of permanent disability caused by applicant’s...
A Kentucky statute, Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 342.7305(2), which provides workers’ compensation benefits for occupational hearing loss only where a claimant’s binaural hearing impairment, converted to impairment of the whole person, results in impairment of more than...
The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania held that one legal effect of the recent decision of the state’s Supreme Court, in Protz v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (Derry Area Sch. Dist.) , 161 A.3d 827 (Pa. 2017), was essentially to undermine the legal authority...
While a Kentucky physician must base his or her impairment rating regarding an injured worker on the AMA Guides (5th Ed.), the physician is not required to park his or her medical judgment at the examining room door. He or she may utilize clinical skill and judgment...
The AMA Guides under the California’s workers’ compensation system are for determining whole person impairment (WPI) and not apportionment under Labor Code §§ 4663 and 4664 In two separate cases, Caires v. Sharp Healthcare, 2014 Cal. Wrk...
Where an injured worker’s medical expert opined that utilizing Advisories 2003–10 and 2003–10b—and not the AMA Guides—the worker, who underwent four surgeries, including a spinal fusion and a laminectomy, had a 20 percent impairment rating, that rating did not...
The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed an award of PTD benefits to an X-ray technician who contended her migraine headaches were triggered by exposure to chemicals at a medical clinic where she worked. The...
A recent case reflects how crucial it is for an evaluating or treating physician to point out all objective medical findings as a result of an industrial injury, and then there has to be a correlation between those objective medical findings and the ultimate WPI...
It was appropriate for the ALJ to disregard the portion of the injured worker’s medical expert witness testimony that related to visual impairment where the expert, in assessing the overall permanent impairment of the injured worker, based his that assessment on...
The Appellate Court of Illinois, Workers’ Compensation Commission Division, held that section 8.1b of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act [820 Ill. Comp. Stat. 305/8.1b (2012)], does not require an injured worker to submit an “AMA rating report”...