By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Practitioners beware! Death benefit trials often raise intricate and unique evidentiary conundrums. Obtaining...
Oakland, CA – California’s State Average Weekly Wage (SAWW) rose nearly 3.8 percent in the year ending March 31, 2024, which will result in an increase in California workers’ compensation...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 89, No. 10 October 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 Hon. Robert G. Rassp, Presiding Judge, WCAB Los Angeles, California Division of Workers’ Compensation Disclaimer: The material and any opinions contained in this article are solely those of...
Oakland, CA – Migraine Drugs represented less than 1% of all prescriptions dispensed to California injured workers in 2023 but they consumed 4.7% of workers’ compensation drug payments, a nearly...
Where a Florida worker sustained work-related injuries to her neck, back, and right shoulder in 2002, and subsequently suffered a psychiatric injury, in the form of depression, as a result of the injury and, prior to reaching MMI status, successfully petitioned for disability retirement via the Florida Retirement System in June 2003 when she was 49 years old, it was error for a judge of compensation claims to deny additional benefits under Westphal v. City of St. Petersburg, 194 So. 3d 311 (Fla. 2016), on the basis that claimant would have reached "statutory MMI based upon 260 weeks of [TTD] benefits being exhausted" as of December 30, 2004, held a state appellate court. The appellate court disagreed with the rationale employed by the JCC, indicating it was error to focus on claimant's retirement date, as well as her age and disability status at that time, because the relevant date for determining whether a claimant qualified for PTD was the date of either overall MMI or at the expiration of her entitlement to temporary benefits, whichever occurred first. By using her retirement date as the central component to determine whether the Claimant was entitled to PTD, the JCC committed legal error.
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 Pannell v. Escambia County Sch. Dist., 2020 Fla. App. LEXIS 5114 (1st DCA April 15, 2020)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 80.03.
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.