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’...
An independent medical examiner (IME) offered by the employer to opine on whether there was a sufficient causal connection between an employee’s lung condition and his employment need not be a board-certified pulmonologist, held a Florida appellate court recently. The physician, who was board-certified in occupational medicine, testified that he had extensive experience in exposure cases leading to pulmonary problems. The IME physician opined that claimant’s 17-year history of cigarette smoking was the major contributing cause of his COPD condition and not an 11-day stent as an employee with the employer.
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 Blanco v. Creative Mgmt. Servs., LLC, 2019 Fla. App. LEXIS 15637 (1st DCA, Oct. 17, 2019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 130.05[4].
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see