قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Insurance / The High Court revokes human access to long-term prescriptions for opioids

The High Court revokes human access to long-term prescriptions for opioids



The Minnesota Supreme Court on Wednesday sentenced a man who injured his ankle at work and has been on opioids to manage his pain for much of the time since then did not meet the statutory parameters to prevent long-term use of opioids, which converted earlier decisions that enabled him to continue his medication.

William Johnson suffered a "severe" hip sprain in 2002 when he stepped on a piece of scrap metal while working for Darchuk & # 39 ;s Fabrication Inc .; the injury led to complex regional pain syndrome, for which he was prescribed a painkiller containing the opioid oxycodone, which is now regulated under Minnesota law, according to the judgment in Johnson v. Darchuk & # 39 ;s Fabrication, Inc., filed and St. Paul.

"As recently as 201

6, Johnson's pain was present twenty-four hours a day, limiting his physical activity and interfering with his sleep. According to the records, however, there may be alternatives to his current treatment, including a new referral to a pain clinic if Johnson is willing, but that his condition is likely to be "long", according to Wednesday's ruling.

In 2019 and 2020, state lawmakers urged the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industries to introduce parameters to measure whether treatment is reasonable and appropriate. Some cases that do not fully fit into a particular parameter can be considered a "rare case" and treatment can continue, according to legal documents.

Previous judgments showed that Johnson encountered a "rare case" of opioid use to manage his pain. The Supreme Court did not agree that the case lacked the necessary evidence.

"Johnson has not justified why his treatment does not comply with the long-term parameter for opioid treatment, and therefore the Compensation Judge and (workers" Compensation Court) erred in law when he concluded that his non-compliance could be excused under the exception in rare cases. ", it was stated in the judgment.


Source link