|
|
|
Find Solutions & Strategies May 17, 2010 |
|
Prescription Drugs and Workers' Comp |
CMS Clarifies Guidance on Prescription Drugs and Medicare Workers' Comp Set-Aside Agreements |
|
A Note From the Editor |  | Dear WC Professionals:
The big story out of Texas last week involved two government employees who say they were terminated for blowing the whistle on physician fraud in the comp system. Read it here.
Sincerely, Robin E. Kobayashi, J.D.
LexisNexis Editorial & Content Development
|
Videocast of the Week |
What is the difference between the MMSEA and a Medicare set aside?
Hear the answer from Sylvius von Saucken, Chief Compliance Officer with The Garretson Firm Resolution Group Inc. View it |
Web Poll Final Results |
Should a worker who uses medical marijuana at home be fired by his employer for testing positive for drugs?
- Yes - 27%
- Depends on nature of work - 36%
- No - 36%
|
Workers' Comp Profile |
Richard C. Kissiah, the Managing Partner of Kissiah & Lay in Alpharetta, GA, practices almost exclusively in the field of workers' compensation law, and is a past chairman of the Atlanta Bar Association's Workers' Compensation Section, a member of the board of directors for the Atlanta Medical Association's Medical-Legal Committee, and the author of Kissiah's Georgia Workers' Compensation Law (LexisNexis Matthew Bender). |
|
featured article: PRESCRIPTION DRUGS |
CMS Clarifies Guidance on Prescription Drugs and Medicare Workers' Comp Set-Aside Agreements. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued a new memorandum dated May 14, 2010, to clarify guidance in CMS's April 3, 2009 and July 1, 2009 procedure memoranda regarding prescription drugs administered to Medicare beneficiaries for off-lable and/or unlabeled outpatient uses and whether these drugs are considered covered by Medicare Part D and, therefore, appropriately included in a Medicare Workers' Compensation Set-aside Agreement (WCMSA) proposal. The May 14, 2010 memorandum also changes the Rated Age (RA) language to be included in WCMSAs, as detailed in the August 25, 2008 procedure memorandum. Read the memo |
 |
Larson's spotlight: 5 recent cases you should know about |
Larson's Spotlight reports noteworthy workers' comp cases each week. This list was compiled by Thomas A. Robinson, a staff writer for Larson's Workers' Compensation Law, the nation's leading authority on workers' compensation law.
#1 AL: Worker's Termination Tied to Gun Possession, Not Workers' Comp Claim
#2 SC: Free Housing Included in Computation of Average Weekly Wage
#3 KS: Level of Marijuana Metabolites in Worker's Bloodstream Triggers Intoxication Presumption
#4 CO: 2007 Amendment Increasing Maximum Lump Sum Payments to Injured Workers Allows Worker with 1990 Claim to Recover Additional Benefits
#5 MS: Injured Trucker Was Employee, Not Independent Contractor |
 |
blog round up |
Workers' Comp Fraud Blotter - Recent Arrests, Charges, Convictions, Investigations 5/13/2010. Read it
Employers Win. Fraud Loses. A podcast submitted by Rebecca A. Shafer. Hear it
Longshore Update from the Benefits Review Board, by Janice Ulan, Associate General Counsel, Longshore, Benefits Review Board. Read it
Worker's Pot Smoking Prior to Feeding Grizzly Bears Does Not Defeat Montana Comp Claim, by Thomas A. Robinson. Read it |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
what's new in larson's workers' compensation law | 
Lexis.com subscribers to Larson's Workers' Compensation Law can link to the chapter discussion below.
Find out more about how to become a Larson's online subscriber by contacting: Caroline.Conway@lexisnexis.com. Witness Fees; Other Costs; Interest. Chapter 134, which discusses the general rule that witness fees and other expenses incurred in connection with a compensation hearing must ordinarily be borne by the party incurring them, has been updated. By express statute in a number of jurisdictions, allowance is made for recovery of some fees and expenses if the injured employee is "successful." How much "success" is required is subject to some interpretation. For example, in a recent case from Ohio, Azbell v. The Newark Group, Inc., 2008 Ohio 2639; 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 2233 (May 27, 2008), the appellate court held it was error to deny reimbursement for claimant's expert witness's fees because, while claimant did not succeed on all claims, the expert supported all claims, and it was difficult, if not impossible, to apportion the fees and costs between the successful and non-successful ones [see Ch. 134, § 134.02 n.1]. Practitioners should be aware that on appeal, costs can usually be assessed against the losing party under general costs statutes and that some states also allow the claimant to collect interest on unpaid benefits. |
 |
save 50% now on larson's |
Larson's Workers' Compensation Law (12 vols.)
Regular Price: $3,981
Discount Price: $1,990.50
Larson's Workers' Compensation, Desk Edition (3 vols.)
Regular Price: $1,063
Discount Price: $531.50
Offer extended through June 2010 |
LexisNexis and the Knowledge Burst logo are registered trademarks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used under license. Other products or services may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective companies.
Privacy & Security Copyright © 2010 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|