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...
Where an injured worker and his employer/carrier entered into settlement agreement, subsequently approved by a WCJ, calling for payment of $148,574.00 ($8,574.00 of which was to be placed in a Medicare Set-Aside Account) to the worker, and the worker subsequently filed a motion to amend the order of approval on the basis that due to his counsel's inadvertence, the WCJ's order did not include language that expressed the indemnity portion of the settlement in a monthly amount, as required by the Social Security Administration (so that the SSA could properly calculate any federal offset resulting from his simultaneous receipt of workers' compensation benefits and SSDI benefits, it was appropriate for the WCJ to modify the order, held a Louisiana appellate court. The Court acknowledged that while an approved agreement could ordinarily not be modified, here the rights of the employer/carrier were not being modified at all. The modification neither took away nor added anything to the original agreement. Practitioners should observe that the appellate court also awarded the worker’s counsel an additional $3,500 attorney’s fee for work performed on the appeal.
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 Clark v. Sedgwick CMS, 17-1063 (La. App. 3 Cir. 05/30/18), 2018 La. App. LEXIS 1074
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, §§ 132.06,157.03.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law