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’...
Substantial evidence supported the Commission’s finding that an office worker sustained compensable injuries when she slipped on a wet marble floor as she stepped into Arkansas’ Capitol building about fifteen minutes before her work day began, in spite of the relatively restrictive Arkansas statute [Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(A)(i) (Repl. 2012)] that states that an injury arises out of and in the course of the employment only if the employee “is performing employment services” for the employer at the time of the injury. Citing earlier case law, the Court stressed that an employee performs employment services when he or she is doing something that is generally required by the employer. The employee's supervisor testified that their office was responsible for day-to-day operations of maintenance for the Capitol building, that the injured employee had a state-issued cell phone, and that both the supervisor and the employee were subject to receiving maintenance requests as soon as either exited his or her vehicle in the morning. The Court said reasonable minds could conclude that the injured employee was acting within the scope and course of her employment and directly or indirectly advancing her employer's interests when she slipped and fell. Whether the claimant is technically "on" or "off" the clock was not dispositive.
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 Arkansas Secy. of St. v. Young, 2018 Ark App. 508, 2018 Ark. App. LEXIS 600 (Oct. 24, 2018)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 3.01.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law