CompFox AI Summary
This case involves a workers' compensation applicant residing in Nevada who was receiving telephonic therapy from a California-licensed Marriage and Family Therapist. The defendant sought reconsideration, arguing that the telephonic therapy violated Nevada law as the therapist was not licensed in Nevada. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, holding that California law governs treatment for injuries sustained in California, and the teletherapy in question complied with California's telehealth statutes. The Board concluded that the therapist's location in California while providing services to a Nevada resident did not violate California law, and any potential violation of Nevada law was irrelevant to the California workers' compensation claim.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
This case involves a workers' compensation applicant residing in Nevada who was receiving telephonic therapy from a California-licensed Marriage and Family Therapist. The defendant sought reconsideration, arguing that the telephonic therapy violated Nevada law as the therapist was not licensed in Nevada. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, holding that California law governs treatment for injuries sustained in California, and the teletherapy in question complied with California's telehealth statutes. The Board concluded that the therapist's location in California while providing services to a Nevada resident did not violate California law, and any potential violation of Nevada law was irrelevant to the California workers' compensation claim.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.