Each week we report 2 to 3 recent panel decisions that we're considering for the LexisNexis® services:

  

NOTE:  If you have any problem accessing cases, please email me at Robin.E.Kobayashi@lexisnexis.com.

 

Medical Treatment; Reasonableness and Necessity; Ergonomic Equipment. Defendant was not required under LC 4600 to provide applicant with recommended ergonomic equipment at her new place of employment as an element of her award of further medical treatment, ergonomic equipment was necessary to assist applicant's ability to continue working, and that such equipment was not a form of medical treatment necessary to cure or relieve effects of applicant's injury, but rather constituted an accommodation of applicant's disability akin to that mandated by FEHA to make her workplace accessible and usable through acquisition of specialized equipment. See Costa panel decision.

Evidence; Medical Evidence; WCAB's Duty to Develop Record. WCAB rescinded WCJ's order deferring applicant's claim for psychiatric injury pending further development of medical record, when applicant sought to proceed to trial despite being on notice from defendant at time of MSC that her medical evidence was inadequate due to a false and inaccurate history, and applicant had opportunity to cure defect in record prior to filing a DOR and before stipulating to proceed to trial on issue of psyche injury; applicant is not entitled to assert that she is ready for trial and then, when evidence is found to be inadequate, obtain a second chance to meet burden of proof based upon WCAB's duty to develop medical record. See Rivas panel decision.

Settlements; Compromise and Release Agreements; Payment of Proceeds. Defendant was obligated to pay applicant proceeds of compromise and release even though defendant timely sent settlement check to applicant's attorney for payment to applicant, when applicant never received defendant's check because, after forging applicant's signature, employee of applicant's attorney cashed check without attorney's knowledge; applicant's attorney, while acting as a conduit by agreeing to forward check to applicant, was not authorized to accept payment on applicant's behalf and did not serve as applicant's agent for purpose of accepting payment. See Pineda panel decision.