The Arkansas Court of Appeals yesterday in a decision not certified for publication upheld a Workers' Compensation Commission decision against finding a compensable consequence injury though the evidence could have supported such.
In Mays vs. Hamilton House Restaurant CA04-576 011905 Angela
If you have a 1990 injury.
An F&A in 1992.
A PTRO in 1994.
If the new and further is still open and you have a compensable consequence in 2005 does it matter that there was no second F&A etc. as to the 5 year rule or would the compensable consequence still be barred
getting in to an accident causing the other injuries probably no intent to injure one's self so that defense does not work. The resultant PD of the body part causing the compensable consequence by analysis is not material. For instance you could have a knee that buckles and yet full range of motion
It is just too tempting for me to resist to say that "I am excited by this post."
But I beg to differ. If medical treatment causes additional problems that is a compensable consequence of the
The 4th District Court of Appeal on Wednesday summarily upheld the denial of a worker's claim for benefits for neck and back injuries that he claimed to be a compensable consequence of a prior injury.
The case was Csaki v. WCAB Catalyst Industries No. D065756.
Zoltan Csaki had tripped
since only increased PD is prohibited.
But for the "neck and shoulders" I would see that as a compensable consequence of the original injury b1jaios8ci1jaios8cnot as a compensable consequence of sleep dysfunctioni1jaios8cb1jaios8c and believe that the Legislative comment in
An applicant is petitioning the California Supreme Court to review a panel decision stating that she did not suffer other injuries as a compensable consequence of her work-related psychiatric injury.
Applicant Kathy Kellermann filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court on
The MVA would become a compensable consequence if the underlying claim is found to be compensable. Medical treatment during the travel for the treatment of an INJURY is covered under the going and coming rule Laines 40 CCC 365. So your original question is convoluted. First we have to
Vincent underwent surgery. In 2011 he became dizzy and fell as a result of his pain medication injuring his knee. He filed a claim for benefits for the knee asserting it was a compensable consequence of his original work-related injuries.
A deputy commissioner awarded benefits for the
I think it depends on more facts as to whether or not the amendment is proper. For instance was the amendment due to a compensable consequence e.g. a MVA where the EE was on the way tofrom the PTP and was trapped in a burning car and almost burned alive but was saved in the nick of time