By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board The battle of the bill review experts is on! This issue was the focus of the recent Noteworthy Panel Decision...
By Hon. 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 article...
Oakland, CA – The decline in opioid use in California workers’ compensation has outpaced the decline among the state’s overall population according to a new California Workers’...
By Julius Young, Richard Jacobsmeyer, Barry Bloom, Editors-in-Chief for Herlick, California Workers’ Compensation Handbook [Note: This article is excerpted from the upcoming 2025 edition of Herlick...
By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Practitioners beware! Death benefit trials often raise intricate and unique evidentiary conundrums. Obtaining...
The schedule benefits section of the District of Columbia's public-sector workers' compensation law, D.C. Code § 1-623.07 (2016 Repl.), does not provide for the payment of benefits for a worker's PTSD, held an appellate court, in spite of the worker's claim that she had sustained an injury to the "brain/head." Claimant had been diagnosed with PTSD and a six percent PPD, following a physical injury that she sustained in connection with her work. She sought an award of PPD benefits after she had returned to work. Observing that schedule benefits were but one form of statutory benefits allowed to an injured employee, the court said only those benefits listed in the "schedule" could support an award under the statute.
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 Office of Risk Mgmt. v. Jordan, 2020 D.C. App. LEXIS 378 (Sept. 18, 2020)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, §§ 56.03, 86.03.
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.