05/01/2013
that applicant sustained an injury in the form of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy CIDP as a compensable consequence of the industrial injury applicant sustained on March 31 1975 to his back psyche and in the form of a urologic condition. The WCJ also found that applicant is
Category: Panel
07/31/2009
I agree. I think this would be a new injury. After all it happened at work. The hand was not really injured BECAUSE OF the shoulderelbow injury.
Category: Forums
07/31/2009
There is case law in the VR area that awards joint and several liability in situations that are analogous to the described case.
It appears to me th
Category: Forums
06/10/2010
2001 ortho case stipulated in 05 properly based upon old schedule. Then in 2006 New and Further filed and includs new body parts psyche and internal as compensable consequence. I assume new body parts are old schedule as well
Category: Forums
05/17/2011
applicant has industrial ortho injuries settles by Stips then files pet. to reopen for heart attack. Internal med doc says heart problems in part re
Category: Forums
05/18/2011
Read "Granado v WCAB 1968 33 CCC 647 Supreme Court En Banc."
It's not directly on point with your fact pattern but it's still good law an
Category: Forums
08/31/2012
No. It's still the same injury a compensable consequence. But a bad surgery is potentially malpractice which IMHO is your remedy. Send your client to a med-mal specialist in P.I.
Category: Forums
04/04/2012
compensable consequence of the specific injury.
That if the parties want him to address the other body parts as to whether or not the CT supports the mechanism of injury they should provide an Application for the CT.
That he will defer discussion as to the other body parts if they are not compensable
Category: Forums
03/01/2009
hypertension and May 23 2007 for his heart trouble. Finally defendant contended that the
2 3 4
6 7 8 9
1 01 11f
12
evidence does not justify the finding that applicant's hypertension is a compensable consequence of his lung cancer. Applicant filed an answer. Based on our review of the record and
Category: Panel
12/17/2020
cause of the need for treatment. SAIF did not dispute that the medical evidence established that the industrial accident was a material contributing cause of the need for treatment of the MRSA but contended that the infection was a consequence of the compensable injury rather than the industrial
Category: Cases