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’...
Oakland, CA -- Payments for medical-legal evaluations and reports used to resolve medical disputes in California work injury claims have increased more than expected since a new Med-Legal Fee Schedule...
The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey, in a case of first impression, affirmed a workers’ compensation judge’s finding that an employer was required to reimburse its employee for the employee’s use of medical marijuana dispensed under the state’s Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act (MMA). The appellate court found there was no conflict between the MMA and federal law in the form of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.S. § 841) in as much as the employer was not required “to possess, manufacture or distribute marijuana,” but only to reimburse the former employee for his purchase of medical marijuana. Important to the court’s ruling was the fact that the injured employee had demonstrated the severity and chronic nature of his pain, his attempts to unsuccessfully alleviate the pain with multiple surgeries and medical modalities, and the efficacy of the prescribed medical marijuana. Accordingly, under these circumstances, the use of medical marijuana was reasonable and necessary.
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 Hager v. M&K Construction, 2020 N.J. Super. LEXIS 4 (Jan. 13, 2019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 94.06.
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.