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...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 89, No. 6 June 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 and Hon. Clint Feddersen Questioning the Vocational Expert [a] Depositions Counsel will often need to take the deposition of the vocation expert. Live testimony of a vocational...
Oakland, CA – A bill that would give a presumption of compensability to farmworker heat-related injury claims if the employer is found to be out of compliance with Cal/OSHA’s outdoor heat illness...
An Iowa workers’ compensation claimant was entitled to alternate medical care under Iowa Code § 85.27, in spite of his refusal to attend an independent medical examination (IME) proposed by the employer to determine if the additional treatment was related to the original injury, held a state appellate court. The court stressed the two statutes, § 85.27 related to alternate care and Iowa Code § 85.39(1), which generally requires a claimant to attend an IME, served separate purposes. Here the employer had admitted the injury was compensable. The worker had established the need for alternate care under the statute. That he refused to attend the IME did not impact the request for alternate care.
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 Harris Steel Group, Inc. v. Botkin, 2020 Iowa App. LEXIS 40 (Jan. 9, 2020)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 10.10.
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.