On Friday, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Wilkes vs. City of Greenville, which changes how to view requests for ongoing medical treatment and the standard required to establish indemnity disability. The Supreme Court determined that there is a rebuttable presumption of ongoing medical treatment for ANY injury claimed as a result of an accepted accident, even where it is for anxiety and depression or body parts not enumerated on the Form 60. In Wilkes, Defendants filed a Form 60 accepting injuries to “ribs, neck, legs and entire left side” as result of a moving vehicle accident. Later, Plaintiff sought treatment for ringing in the ears, anxiety, depression and sleep loss. The Court stated that there was a rebuttable presumption that plaintiff’s alleged ongoing medical conditions were causally related to the accepted accident. This rebuttable presumption appears to apply to ANY claim of additional medical treatment for ANY body part.