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...
A Kansas appellate court affirmed an award of workers’ compensation benefits to a Topeka hospital housekeeping employee who sustained injuries in two separate unexplained falls. The court was not persuaded by the employer’s argument that following a 2011 amendment to Kan. Stat. Ann. § 44-508(f)(3)(A), injuries that arise from all neutral risks, such as unexplained accidents, are no longer compensable. Finding the facts similar to those in Estate of Graber v. Dillon Cos., 2019 Kan. LEXIS 67 (Apr. 12, 2019), a decision by the state’s Supreme Court, the appellate court sustained the worker’s argument that walking was an important component of her job and her injuries, therefore, had an “employment character.”
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 Johnson v. Stormont Vail Healthcare Inc., 2019 Kan. App. LEXIS 47 (July 12, 2019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 7.04.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see