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...
COMPLEX EMPLOYMENT ISSUES FOR CALIFORNIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION A new softbound supplement to Rassp & Herlick, California Workers’ Compensation Law 284 pages PIN #0006801214509 For...
By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Just when you thought the right of “due process” was on the brink of destruction, the legislature...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Over the past several decades California has implemented broad legislative...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 89, No. 9 September 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...
Noting that a workers’ compensation claimant’s expert medical witnesses appeared to be completely unaware of the prophylactic measures taken by the employer to prevent contamination of its internal water system and that the employer’s experts detailed those measures and opined that the claimant’s Legionnaires’ disease could not be attributed to exposure to water at his employment, an Iowa appellate court affirmed a commissioner’s finding that the claimant had failed to establish his claim. The appellate court noted that it was a “close case,” but substantial evidence supported the commissioner’s findings.
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 McDonald v. EZ Payroll & Staffing Solutions, 2019 Iowa App. LEXIS 687 (July 24, 2019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 15.05.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see