By Robert G. Rassp, author of The Lawyer’s Guide to the AMA Guides and California Workers’ Compensation (LexisNexis) Disclaimer: The material and any opinions contained in this treatise are...
Oakland, CA – Private self-insured claim volume in the California workers' compensation system fell 9.5% in 2023, producing the biggest year-to-year decline in private self-insured claim frequency...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board No matter the source of your media consumption, it seems that the topic...
By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Who doesn’t agree with the fact that “[w]e should not interpret or apply statutory language...
When do the exclusivity provisions of Labor Code section 3600 permit an action for law at damages? By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’...
Where a taxi driver sustained work-related injuries in a vehicular accident and subsequently settled his third-party tort action against the other driver’s estate for the policy limits of that driver’s auto insurance policy without obtaining written approval from the employer, it was appropriate for the Workers’ Compensation Board to dismiss the driver’s workers' compensation claim under Alaska Stat. § 23.30.015(h). The Court also was not persuaded by the driver’s argument that the employer had not been prejudiced.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.
See Atkins v. Inlet Transp. & Taxi Serv., 2018 Alas. LEXIS 144 (Sept. 21, 2018)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 116.07.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law