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...
Citing Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, and stressing that a surviving spouse’s death benefits claim is not derivative of the injured worker’s claim, a Maryland appellate court found that a settlement agreement and full release, signed only by the injured workerand not the spouse, could not operate so as to bar her subsequent death benefits claim. The court added that in the workers’ compensation case that had been settled, there was but one claimant—the injured worker. The spouse was not a party and she was not bound by a document that she had not signed.
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 In re Collins, 2019 Md. App. LEXIS 640 (Aug. 2, 2019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 98.01.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see