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’...
Oakland, CA -- Payments for medical-legal evaluations and reports used to resolve medical disputes in California work injury claims have increased more than expected since a new Med-Legal Fee Schedule...
A Florida appellate court held that a Judge of Compensation Claims erred in awarding workers’ compensation benefits to a claimant for an alleged toxic exposure claim in the form of fungal meningitis in as much as the statutes in question—§ 440.02(1), Fla. Stat. and § 440.09(1), Fla. Stat.—required the the worker establish his or her claim by clear and convincing proof that the condition was caused by a workplace exposure. That an expert indicated claimant “most likely” acquired the fungus in the course and scope of his employment was insufficient, stressed the court. The court acknowledged what it called the “Herculean” task created by the heightened burden of proof, but stressed that it was for the Legislature, not the courts, to set such policies.
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 City of Titusville v. Taylor, 2019 Fla. App. LEXIS 17914 (1st DCA, Nov. 27, 2019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 52.02.
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.