|
|
|
|
|
|
Find Solutions & Strategies June 1, 2010 |
|
|
Manipulation Under Anesthesia |
Is the Whole Greater Than the Sum of its Parts?
A Safe, Effective, and Cost-Effective Procedure? |
|
| A Note From the Editor |  | | Dear WC Professionals:
As a valued subscriber to this national eNewsletter, you can access our two articles on Manipulation Under Anesthesia for free through June 15, 2010.
Sincerely,
Robin E. Kobayashi, J.D.
LexisNexis Editorial & Content Development
|
| Videocast of the Week | | What are the Medicare reporting requirements under the MMSEA?
See what Duane Morris partner Sharon Caffrey had to say. View it. |
| Workers' Comp Profile |
 Ronald E. Weiss is a partner in the workers' compensation defense firm of Hamberger & Weiss, which has offices in Rochester and Buffalo, New York. He is managing partner of the Rochester office. Mr. Weiss has been listed for over 10 years in The Best Lawyers in America in the field of workers' compensation. He serves as the Secretary of The College of Workers' Compensation Lawyers. He is also the co-author of New York Workers' Compensation Handbook (LexisNexis Matthew Bender). |
| Web Poll in Progress |
As a workers' comp professional, do you use social media sites (LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, etc.) to help you with your work?
- Never - 17%
- Rarely - 17%
- Sometimes - 67%
|
|
| point counterpoint on manipulation under anesthesia | |
 MUA: Is the Whole Greater Than the Sum of its Parts? by Stephen Levit, MD. Spinal manipulation under anesthesia is a controversial procedure for allegedly treating spine pain using osteopathic or chiropractic manipulation techniques while the patient is under general anesthesia or conscious sedation. The lack of evidence-based scientific studies in terms of either short or long term outcome proving valid pain reduction is sufficient to result in rejection of the technique's effectiveness for most allopathic osteopaths and medical doctors. Read more. (Note: This article may be accessed for free through June 15, 2010.)
 MUA: A Safe, Effective, and Cost-Effective Procedure for Suitable Candidates, by Edward Cremata, DC. The controversy over spinal MUA has been fueled by opinions that have circulated regarding spinal FRP-MUA procedures - some justified, but most based on ignorance and mistruths. The issues commonly raised regarding FRP-MUA procedures for the spine include safety, efficacy, legality, abuse, and cost-effectiveness. I will address each of these issues briefly within this article. Read more. ( Note: This article may be accessed for free through June 15, 2010.) |
 |
| 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 WY: Sheepherder's Death Following Argument With Another Sheepherder Did Not Arise Out of and in the Course of Employment
#2 VA: Tattoo Artist Killed in Armed Robbery Was Not Employee, But Independent Contractor
#3 CT: Worker Injured in Car Wreck May Not Recover Under Uninsured Motorist Portion of Her Auto Policy Where Driver Was Co-Employee and Not Susceptible to Suit
#4 NY: Injured Sheetrock Worker Was Employee and Not Independent Contractor in Spite of Minimal Supervision of Duties
#5 NC: Refusal to Allow Choice of Physician and Refusal to Allow Worker to Return to Light Work Duties Could Not Support Tort Liability for Alleged Retaliatory Discrimination |
|
| blog round up | |
 Workers' Comp Fraud Blotter - Recent Arrests, Charges, Convictions, Investigations 6/3/2010. Read it.
 Physician Fees Will Change - Are You Paying Attention? by Joe Paduda. 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. Death Benefits. Entitlement to benefits can vary, depending upon one's status as fully or only partially dependent. There is some variation among the states as to what date controls-the date of the accident or the date of death. Chapter 98, which discusses the dependent's right to death benefits as an independent right derived from statute, is being revised and updated for the June 2010 release. In one recent case from Arkansas, Estate of Slaughter v. City of Hampton Mun. League WC Trust, 102 Ark. App. 373, 285 S.W.3d 669, review denied, 2008 Ark. LEXIS 786 (2008), the executrix and employee were not married at the time of the compensable injury. They were, however, living together, and the executrix was dependent on the employee. Shortly before the employee died, he and the executrix were married. The Commission denied widow's benefits to the executrix because she was not married to the employee when he suffered his injury. The executrix argued that the mere fact that she was married to and wholly dependent on the employee for her support when he died entitled her to widow's benefits. Construing Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-527, the appellate court held that the executrix did not need to prove that she was legally married to the employee when the injury occurred; she was required, however, to prove (a) that she was a widow and (b) that she was dependent on him at the time of the injury. The court indicated that since the Commission failed to make any finding regarding whether the executrix was actually and wholly dependent on the employee when he died, the matter had to be remanded [ See Ch. 98, § 98.05[3] n7] . |
|
| 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.
|
|
|
|
