Tag Archives: permanent disability

PA Legislative Bill Would Require Use of 6th Edition of AMA Guides

Yesterday (October 2, 2017), a cadre of 29 Pennsylvania legislators introduced a bill—House Bill 1840—that would require physicians to apply the methodology set forth in “the sixth edition” of the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment … Continue reading

Posted in Case comment | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

S.C. Supreme Court Says Return to Work Insufficient to Rebut Presumption of PTD Where Impairment to Back is Greater Than 50 Percent

Yesterday, in a divided decision, the Supreme Court of South Carolina, overruling an earlier decision of the state’s Court of Appeals, held that evidence of subsequent employment is insufficient by itself to rebut the presumption of permanent and total disability … Continue reading

Posted in Case comment | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on S.C. Supreme Court Says Return to Work Insufficient to Rebut Presumption of PTD Where Impairment to Back is Greater Than 50 Percent

Tennessee Court Awards Permanent Total Benefits For Worker’s Migraines

The Supreme Court of Tennessee’s Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel recently affirmed a decision by a state trial court awarding an X-ray technician permanent and total disability benefits because of migraine headaches that the trial court had found were exacerbated … Continue reading

Posted in Case comment | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Tennessee Court Awards Permanent Total Benefits For Worker’s Migraines

Vermont: AMA Guides Are Mandatory for Impairment Rating Purposes–Not Diagnosis of Condition Itself

The Supreme Court of Vermont, in a split decision, recently held that while the AMA Guides (5th Ed.) are determinative with respect to “any determination of the existence and degree of permanent partial impairment” associated with a work-related injury, the … Continue reading

Posted in Case comment | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Vermont: AMA Guides Are Mandatory for Impairment Rating Purposes–Not Diagnosis of Condition Itself