Dodge v. Bruccoli, Clark, Layman, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating the fact a claimant has reached MMI does not preclude a finding the claimant still may require additional medical care or treat ment
• finding whether employee reached MMI was irrelevant to entitlement to permanent disability benefits because “ ‘[mjaximum medical improvement’ is a distinctly different concept from ‘disability.’ ”
• noting the testimony by the claimant and the physicians that the claimant needed permanent treatment to function but remanding to the Appellate Panel for a determination of whether additional payments tended to lessen his period of disability
• finding there was a question of fact as to whether the claimant was entitled to continued medical treatment when treatment meant the difference between the claimant \being able to work and not being able to work\ and remanding the issue to the worker's compensation commission for consideration
• \[A]n employer may be liable for a claimant's future medical treatment if it tends to lessen the claimant's period of disability despite the fact the claimant has returned to work and has reached [MMI].\
• “ ‘Maximum medical improvement’ is a distinctly different concept from ‘disability.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).