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...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 89, No. 9 September 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 Thomas A. Robinson, co-author, Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law Editorial Note: All section references below are to Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, unless otherwise indicated...
By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board One of the most common reasons evaluating physicians flunk the apportionment validity test is due to their...
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a federal district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a borrowing employer who had been sued by its borrowed employee, a welder, after the welder sustained injuries when gasses exploded while he was performing welding work on an offshore oil platform. The borrowing employer had been hired to decommission an offshore platform and utilized the welder’s services in the project. The welder sought recovery under, inter alia, the Jones Act, alleging negligence on the part of the borrowing employer. The district court granted summary judgment on the basis that the welder was not a Jones Act “seaman.” The 5th Circuit Court noted that since its decision in Barrett v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 781 F.2d 1067 (5th Cir. 1986) (en banc), it had generally declined to find seaman status where the employee spent less than 30 percent of his time aboard ship. Moreover, the court reiterated that land-based maritime workers did not become seamen because they happened to be working on board a vessel when they were injured. The court said it was clear that the welder spent less than 30 percent of his time in service on any one vessel or group of vessels. The 30 percent general guideline had been approved in Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347, 368 (1995).
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. Bracketed citations link to lexis.com.
See Wilcox v. Wild Well Control, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12878 (5th Cir., July 24, 2015) [2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12878 (5th Cir., July 24, 2015)]
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 146.02 [146.02]
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site