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’...
A Kentucky appellate court found that the state Board erred in finding that the agriculture exemption did not apply to a claimant where it was undisputed that he was tasked with hauling the harvested crops and unloading them at the farm’s storage silos, testimony established that the farm only harvested and stored its own crops, the farm’s sole source of income was from the eventual sale of those crops at market, and thus, the claimant’s activities fit within the statutory definition of agriculture as set forth in Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 342.0011(18).
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.
See Homestead Family Farm v. Perry, 2016 Ky. App. LEXIS 193 (Nov. 23, 2016)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 75.01.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law