Position paper presented at CSIMS 2024 by Hon. Robert G. Rassp, Chairman of the Board of Directors, Friends Research Institute (friendsresearch.org) Disclaimers: The opinions expressed in this article...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 89, No. 8 August 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...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board The June 13, 2024 edition of the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation...
LexisNexis has selected some of the top “noteworthy” panel decisions issued by the California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board during the period January through June 2024. The first...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board It is well understood that the California Insurance Guarantee Association...
The Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission did not commit error when it determined that the running blade prosthetic device requested by claimant was not medically necessary under Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-603. Claimant had suffered a work-related accident, which resulted in a below-the-knee amputation of his left foot. He was given a prosthesis to replace his left foot and awarded lifetime medical benefits as well as temporary partial disability benefits. Claimant subsequently sought benefits for two separate prosthetics: an “Elan Boot” for day-to-day activities and a special “Endolite Blade XT” for sporting endeavors. The employer agreed to supply the former, but not the latter. Citing Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the court acknowledged that the employer had a mandatory duty to compensate an injured employee for medical expenses causally related to the injury. Any recommended treatment must, however, be reasonable, necessary, and related to the industrial accident. Here claimant had failed to prove that the running blade was medically necessary. While the medical experts indicated provision of the blade would be “beneficial” in improving claimant’s quality of life, they did not opine that the blade was medically necessary. The court concluded that providing a running blade to enable claimant to participate in sporting activities fell outside the range of benefits provided in the workers' compensation statutes.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is the co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.
See Pacheco v. J.P. Masonry, Inc., 2017 Va. App. LEXIS 294 (Nov. 28, 2017)
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