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’...
A Florida appellate court, reversing in relevant part a decision by a state JCC, held that a worker should have been reimbursed for all his medical expenses, mileage and co-payments incurred for treatment of a work-related injury in spite of the fact that he made no formal demand to the employer or carrier for the treatment since his employer was fully aware of the injury and provided no care. The worker sustained a dislocated shoulder when he was assaulted by an angry bicyclist—a dentist—who rode up and punched the worker while the worker was sitting in his vehicle preparing to enter a gated community to deliver an estimate to a customer. Acknowledging that the employer waited some sixteen months before notifying its insurer, the court said it was still fully aware of the incident—the worker’s supervisor was called to the scene of the assault and followed the injured worker to the hospital. Under the circumstances, full reimbursement should have been awarded under § 440.13(2)(c), Fla. Stat., indicated the court. The court added that if the employer had notified its carrier within the seven days required by statute, the carrier would have been obliged to provide the injured worker with all of the statutorily mandated notices and information, including the statutorily-required informational brochure outlining treatment guidelines. The court concluded that when an employer abandoned its obligation to provide appropriate care, it likewise surrendered to the injured employee the right to select a physician and obtain treatment, provided the care is “compensable and medically necessary.”
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is a leading commentator and expert on the law of workers’ compensation.
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance. Bracketed citations link to lexis.com.
See Fortune v. Gulf Coast Tree Care Inc., 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 16752 (Oct. 13, 2014) [2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 16752 (Oct. 13, 2014)]
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 94.02 [94.02]
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law.