Oakland, CA – Migraine Drugs represented less than 1% of all prescriptions dispensed to California injured workers in 2023 but they consumed 4.7% of workers’ compensation drug payments, a nearly...
COMPLEX EMPLOYMENT ISSUES FOR CALIFORNIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION A new softbound supplement to Rassp & Herlick, California Workers’ Compensation Law 284 pages PIN #0006801214509 For...
By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Just when you thought the right of “due process” was on the brink of destruction, the legislature...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Over the past several decades California has implemented broad legislative...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 89, No. 9 September 2024 A Report of En Banc and Significant Panel Decisions of the WCAB and Selected Court Opinions of Related Interest, With a Digest of WCAB Decisions...
A claimant’s aversion to hypodermic needles associated with injection treatments for her lower back condition was not a sufficient reason to justify a change in physicians, held a Virginia appellate court. Claimant’s physician observed that claimant had an essentially normal MRI and that a functional capacity evaluation expert had opined that claimant had not sufficiently exerted herself during the exam and likely was exaggerating her symptoms. The physician told the claimant that given those circumstances and her refusal to undergo the injection treatments, there was little, if anything, that he could do to relieve her discomfort. The appellate court held that the physician’s actions did not amount to a discharge of the claimant from the physician’s care.
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 Yahner v. Fire-X Corp., 2019 Va. App. LEXIS 101 (Apr. 30, 2019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 94.02.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see