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’...
The definition of “employee” contained within the Massachusetts independent contractor statute (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 149, § 148B), does not displace the definition of “employee” contained in the state’s workers’ compensation law (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 152, § 1). Accordingly, an administrative judge properly concluded that the claimant was an independent contractor where the claimant supplied all necessary instruments to complete her job, purchased her own independent contractor work insurance, and filed taxes as an independent contractor.
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 Advance.
See Camargo’s Case, 2018 Mass. LEXIS 328 (May 10, 2018)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 60.02.
Source:Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law