By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board The battle of the bill review experts is on! This issue was the focus of the recent Noteworthy Panel Decision...
By Hon. 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 article...
Oakland, CA – The decline in opioid use in California workers’ compensation has outpaced the decline among the state’s overall population according to a new California Workers’...
By Julius Young, Richard Jacobsmeyer, Barry Bloom, Editors-in-Chief for Herlick, California Workers’ Compensation Handbook [Note: This article is excerpted from the upcoming 2025 edition of Herlick...
By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Practitioners beware! Death benefit trials often raise intricate and unique evidentiary conundrums. Obtaining...
The Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission’s practice of allowing a recoupment for overpayment of workers’ compensation only where the employer or insurer could show fraud on the part of the injured worker is contrary to statute [see MCL 418.354(9)], held a Michigan appellate court. The statute's clear provisions allowed recoupment for overpayments made during the year prior to the recoupment action; fraud need not be a factor. Accordingly, a decision by the Commission disallowing recoupment because the insurer failed to show fraud could not stand.
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 Fisher v. Kalamazoo Reg’l Psychiatric Hosp., 2019 Mich. App. LEXIS 5341 (Sept. 10, 2019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 131.05.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see