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’...
Quoting Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, a Florida appellate court reversed a trial court’s ruling that a firm was immune from tort liability because the injured party was its “borrowing servant.” The appellate court indicated that there was a presumption that the injured party was not a borrowed servant. Moreover, it was not clear which of two entities contracted for the injured party's services, supervised him, or benefitted from his work. It was also unclear whether the defendant company had the power to control the details of the injured party's work since there was testimony that the injured party was partly supervised by a general employer. The factual issues precluded summary judgment on the issue.
Reported by Thomas A. Robinson, J.D.
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis
See Suarez v. Transmontaigne Servs., Inc., 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 19195 (Dec. 4, 2013)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 67.01
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law.