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’...
The imposition of more than $840,000 fine against an uninsured employer was unconstitutionally excessive under both the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and a similarly-worded provision of the Colorado constitution, where the fine was based upon a statutory formula, but did not take into consideration appropriate factors as to the size of the fine, including the size of the employer’s business and its ability to pay. The court declined to find, however, that the statute was facially unconstitutional.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is the co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.
See Dami Hospitality, LLC v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 2017 COA 21, 2017 Colo. App. LEXIS 207 (Feb. 23, 2017)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 102.01.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law