CompFox AI Summary
This case concerns an employer's petition for reconsideration of an award requiring ongoing medical treatment, including assisted living and wheelchair repairs for an injured worker. The defendant argued that the worker needed to submit a new authorization request after the previous one expired and that the necessity of assisted living was not sufficiently proven. The Board denied the petition, relying on the Patterson v. The Oaks Farm precedent, which places the burden on the employer to demonstrate that previously authorized treatment is no longer reasonably required due to a change in the worker's condition. The defendant failed to present any evidence of such a change, thus upholding the original award.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
This case concerns an employer's petition for reconsideration of an award requiring ongoing medical treatment, including assisted living and wheelchair repairs for an injured worker. The defendant argued that the worker needed to submit a new authorization request after the previous one expired and that the necessity of assisted living was not sufficiently proven. The Board denied the petition, relying on the Patterson v. The Oaks Farm precedent, which places the burden on the employer to demonstrate that previously authorized treatment is no longer reasonably required due to a change in the worker's condition. The defendant failed to present any evidence of such a change, thus upholding the original award.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.