The Supreme Court of Minnesota held that an injured worker had failed to establish that his long-term use of Endocet—an opioid—was in line with long-term treatment parameters established pursuant to Minn. R. 5221.6110 (2019). Accordingly, his continued...
Noting that the surviving spouse had the burden of showing a causal connection between his wife’s death and her employment, and stressing that speculative medical evidence was insufficient, a New York appellate court affirmed a decision by the New York Workers...
The Court of Appeals of Virginia held that a local pharmacy was a “health care provider” under Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-605.1(F), and as such, it could not seek reimbursement for prescription medication where it waited more than one year after its...
The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reversed—for a second time—a decision of the state’s Compensation Appeals Board that had found workers’ compensation carriers for New Hampshire employers could not be required to reimburse an injured worker...
A New York appellate court held that the state's Workers' Compensation Board was empowered with the authority to promulgate the state's Non-Acute Pain Medical Treatment Guidelines (“NAPMTG”), and utilizing the guidelines in the case at bar, the Board...
A decision by the New York Board that directed an injured worker to begin a weaning process from his long-term opioid prescription treatment program was supported by substantial evidence, held a state appellate court. The worker’s claim was established for an occupational...
A New York appellate court recently affirmed the Board's decision that claimant’s continued use of Amrix—a muscle relaxant—was medically necessary in spite of the employer/carrier’s argument that the Board's Non-Acute Pain Management...
Oakland, CA – A new California Workers’ Compensation Institute (CWCI) analysis offers a preliminary look at Utilization Review (UR) and Independent Medical Review (IMR) outcomes involving pharmaceutical requests for California injured workers since...
Any information or opinions contained in this commentary are not necessarily endorsed by LexisNexis® or its affiliates or by the LexisNexis® editorial consultants who review panel decisions. Prior to 2013, there may not have been a more controversial issue than...
By Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., co-author, Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law As most states move into the second millennia of their respective workers’ compensation acts, one might expect that most constitutional issues within the occupational injury and illnesses...
How might the proposed drug formulary impact California? Assembly Bill (hereafter “AB”) 1124 required the California Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC) in California to implement a drug formulary no later than July 1, 2017. The stated impetus for the bill...
Oakland - More than 30 percent of the prescription drugs currently dispensed to injured workers in California will be classified as “Exempt Drugs” and will no longer require authorization prior to dispensing under conditions outlined in the Workers’ Compensation...
By Deborah G. Kohl, Esq. The last several years have seen the “opioid epidemic” become the hot topic in the workers’ compensation industry. It is a problem that everyone from elected officials, government agencies, insurance carriers, doctors and ultimately...
State ranks third in a nation for overdoses related to opioids Governor Christie recently signed SB 3 to set up a 5-day limit on initial opioid prescriptions in the State of New Jersey. We’ve asked Richard B. Rubenstein, the co-author of LexisNexis Practice...
Do the hidden, and not so hidden, costs of physician dispensing of drugs outweigh the benefits? Drugs prescribed and dispensed directly by physicians often cost substantially more to consumers, and by extension any covering insurer, than drugs dispensed by pharmacies...