Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
Massage therapy services are not the sort of services for which an employer must pay to an injured employee unless the services are (a) prescribed by health care professionals specified in Michigan's Workers' Compensation Act and (b) performed by a licensed physical therapist or physical therapist assistant under the supervision of a licensed physical therapist, held a state appellate court, reversing a decision of the Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission, which found the services to be reasonable and necessary. The court stressed the issue was not whether such services were permitted under the Act. Rather, the issue was who should pay for them. Since they had not been prescribed by an appropriate medical authority and had not been performed by a licensed physical therapist (or a physical therapist assistant under the therapist's supervision), payment was the responsibility of the employee.
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 Belcher v. Ford Motor Co., 2020 Mich. App. LEXIS 6210 (Sept. 17, 2020)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 94.03.
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.
District of Columbia: Public Sector Employee May Not Recover Schedule Benefits for PTSD
The schedule benefits section of the District of Columbia's public-sector workers' compensation law, D.C. Code § 1-623.07 (2016 Repl.), does not provide for the payment of benefits for a worker's PTSD, held an appellate court, in spite of the worker's claim that she had sustained an injury to the "brain/head." Claimant had been diagnosed with PTSD and a six percent PPD, following a physical injury that she sustained in connection with her work. She sought an award of PPD benefits after she had returned to work. Observing that schedule benefits were but one form of statutory benefits allowed to an injured employee, the court said only those benefits listed in the "schedule" could support an award under the statute.
See Office of Risk Mgmt. v. Jordan, 2020 D.C. App. LEXIS 378 (Sept. 18, 2020)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, §§ 56.03, 86.03.