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’...
Citing a 1990 decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia [Williams v. Corbett, 260 Ga. 668, 398 SE2d 1 (1990)], as controlling, a state appellate court held that within the context of a workers’ compensation claim, a meretricious relationship works to deny dependency benefits, even if actual dependency exists. Here the claimant had lived with the deceased employee for some 13 years before the employee sustained fatal injuries in a work-related fall. She sought death benefits, contending she was wholly dependent upon the deceased employee. The appellate court agreed with the ALJ that the claimant had made a showing of dependency, but indicated that under the Williams decision, she could not recover since she was not legally married to the deceased at the time of his death.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is the co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.
See Sanchez v. Carter, 2017 Ga. App. LEXIS 465 (Oct. 17, 2017)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 96.02.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see