Position paper presented at CSIMS 2024 by Hon. Robert G. Rassp, Chairman of the Board of Directors, Friends Research Institute (friendsresearch.org) Disclaimers: The opinions expressed in this article...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 89, No. 8 August 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. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board The June 13, 2024 edition of the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation...
LexisNexis has selected some of the top “noteworthy” panel decisions issued by the California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board during the period January through June 2024. The first...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board It is well understood that the California Insurance Guarantee Association...
A divided Maryland appellate court held sufficient evidence existed to support a finding that a paramedic/firefighter had, over time, developed meniscal tears in his right knee and that he, therefore, qualified for benefits for an occupational disease under the state’s Workers’ Compensation Act. Quoting Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, agreed that the nature of the claimant’s work included repetitive bending and kneeling. The Court agreed that in one sense the claimant’s meniscal tears were “an ordinary disease of life,” but the court said that did not preclude recovery where the particular conditions of the employment actually caused the condition. The claimant need not show that his or her condition was “unique” to the employment..
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 Baltimore County v. Quinlan, 2019 Md. LEXIS 439 (August 26, 2019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 52.03.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see