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...
COMPLEX EMPLOYMENT ISSUES FOR CALIFORNIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION A new softbound supplement to Rassp & Herlick, California Workers’ Compensation Law 284 pages PIN #0006801214509 For...
By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Just when you thought the right of “due process” was on the brink of destruction, the legislature...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Over the past several decades California has implemented broad legislative...
A widow, who discovered her husband’s lifeless body crushed beneath an all-terrain vehicle that he had been repairing at his employer’s facility—she had intended to bring him his lunch—may not recover in her bystander emotional distress action filed against her husband’s employer, held the Supreme Court of Connecticut. The high court stressed that the exclusive remedy provisions of the state’s Workers’ Compensation Act were broad and sweeping; her claim was derivative of her husband’s injury and, accordingly, it was barred.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis%20Workers’%20Compensation%20eNewsletter">LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is the co-author of Larson’s%20Workers’%20Compensation%20Law">Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.
See Velecela v. All Habitat Servs., LLC, 2016 Conn. LEXIS 233 (to be released Aug. 9, 2016)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 101.02.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see