.png)
Publications
What's Hot in Workers' Comp - News and Results*
NEWS
RESULTS*
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 26, No.
Superior Court holds that § 2322(b) was not superseded by adoption of § 2322B. Therefore, when employer refuses to furnish medical treatment, claimants are entitled to recover “reasonable cost” of medical treatment instead of Delaware Fee Schedule amount.
The claimant was injured in a compensable work accident on August 31, 2015, but the employer denied medical treatment for a rectal injury and
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 26, No.
Supplemental Security Income benefits to a mother on behalf of a minor injured worker does not constitute dependency for purposes of death benefits.
The decedent/worker, a 16-year-old, tragically drowned on his first day of work at his very first job.
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 26, No.
The Appellate Division affirms a Law Division order enforcing a settlement agreement.
The Appellate Division affirmed a Law Division order enforcing a settlement agreement between the parties.
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 26, No.
The Appellate Division reverses and vacates workers’ compensation order on a statute of limitations issue.
The Appellate Division reversed the Workers’ Compensation Judge’s order denying the motion to dismiss and vacated the final judgment.
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 26, No.
Commonwealth Court holds that the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board exceeded its statutory authority in ordering an employer to contribute to the cost of a new home purchased by the claimant.
The claimant, a construction worker, fell off of a roof, resulting in his becoming a paraplegic.
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 26, No.
Claimant’s receipt of Social Security Disability and pension benefits were partly based on his work injury and a suspension of his benefits based on his voluntary removal from the workforce was improper.
The claimant sustained a work injury to his right knee in August 2014. He had been a union member since 1985.
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 26, No.
Claimant cannot rely on prior Utilization Review Determinations, which established prescription medications were reasonable and necessary, in order to show in later penalty petition that these medications were causally related to injury and payable.
During the claimant’s receipt of workers’ compensation benefits, two Utilization Review (UR) Determinations were issued, finding all of the m
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 26, No.
What's Hot in Workers' Comp - News and Results*
NEWS
RESULTS*
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 26, No.
Delaware Supreme Court affirms Superior Court’s decision regarding an IAB appeal holding that an employer may challenge medical treatment via petition for review if causation is in dispute.
The claimant was injured in a work accident on April 4, 2011.
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide informa