By Robert G. Rassp, author of The Lawyer’s Guide to the AMA Guides and California Workers’ Compensation (LexisNexis) Disclaimer: The material and any opinions contained in this treatise are...
Oakland, CA – Private self-insured claim volume in the California workers' compensation system fell 9.5% in 2023, producing the biggest year-to-year decline in private self-insured claim frequency...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board No matter the source of your media consumption, it seems that the topic...
By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Who doesn’t agree with the fact that “[w]e should not interpret or apply statutory language...
When do the exclusivity provisions of Labor Code section 3600 permit an action for law at damages? By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’...
In Arkansas, a workers’ compensation claimant must ordinarily establish his or her injury claim with medical evidence “supported by objective findings” [see Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(D) (Supp. 2019)]. Acknowledging that requirement, a state appellate court held that while the presence of observed muscle spasm could be sufficient to provide the necessary “objective” medical evidence, it was not necessary that any of claimant’s physicians actually observe the spasms to support a diagnosis of muscle strain. Accordingly, the court reversed a decision by the state’s Workers’ Compensation Commission that had denied a claim filed for a right buttock and thigh injury. The appellate court noted that the diagnoses had followed medical examinations. Prescriptions for pain management medication had been written by the physicians. That was sufficient to support the claim.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the co-Editor-in-Chief and 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 Melius v. Chapel Ridge Nursing Ctr., LLC, 2021 Ark. App. 61, 2021 Ark. App. LEXIS 67 (Feb. 10, 2021)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 128.05.
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.