By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Practitioners beware! Death benefit trials often raise intricate and unique evidentiary conundrums. Obtaining...
Oakland, CA – California’s State Average Weekly Wage (SAWW) rose nearly 3.8 percent in the year ending March 31, 2024, which will result in an increase in California workers’ compensation...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 89, No. 10 October 2024 A Report of En Banc and Significant Panel Decisions of the WCAB and Selected Court Opinions of Related Interest, With a Digest of WCAB Decisions...
By Hon. Robert G. Rassp, Presiding Judge, WCAB Los Angeles, California Division of Workers’ Compensation Disclaimer: The material and any opinions contained in this article are solely those of...
Oakland, CA – Migraine Drugs represented less than 1% of all prescriptions dispensed to California injured workers in 2023 but they consumed 4.7% of workers’ compensation drug payments, a nearly...
Stressing that “idiopathic” and “unexplained” were not synonymous, an Arkansas appellate court agreed with an ALJ’s decision denying workers’ compensation benefits to a worker who, after experiencing severe gastrointestinal pain at his employer’s premises, went to a company rest room, fainted, and struck his knee and head on a bathroom fixture. The worker contended that on the day before his injury, he had noticed blood in his stool at home after a particularly strenuous workday. The following morning, he went to the employer’s premises in order to complete workers’ compensation claims forms. While there, he again felt ill and went to the rest room, where he fainted. The court stressed that the worker’s GI bleed was idiopathic—none of the worker’s treating physicians attributed the bleeding to work-related activity. His injuries were caused by that idiopathic condition, and not by a risk at work.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the co-Editor-in-Chief and 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 Nolen v. Walmart Assocs., 2021 Ark. App. 68 (Feb. 10, 2021)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 9.01.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see
Sign up for the free LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation enewsletter at www.lexisnexis.com/wcnews.