CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 89, No. 7 July 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...
Havanis v. Calif. Dept. of Transportation (Board Panel Decision) By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board I. Medical apportionment is not the...
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...
Substantial evidence supported the Commission’s finding that an injured worker was an employee, and not an independent contractor, where evidence suggested the worker, a car detailer, was required to work exclusively for the purported employer, was instructed to maintain his hours by punching a timecard, was paid by the hour—receiving additional cash payments for work performed on behalf of the dominant shareholder’s farm. That the worker signed a paper writing indicating he was an independent contractor and received 1099 forms, rather than W–2 forms, did not control as those matters related mostly to tax issues. Moreover, the appellate court held substantial evidence supported the Commission’s finding that while the purported employer had segregated his business into three separate entities, in reality, he had operated those three businesses as one entity or unit. The Commission aggregated the number of employees and found that the employer employed at least five persons [see Miss. Code Ann. § 71–3–5].
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. Bracketed citations link to lexis.com.
See Southeastern Auto Brokers v. Graves, 2015 Miss. App. LEXIS 205 (Apr. 14, 2015) [2015 Miss. App. LEXIS 205 (Apr. 14, 2015)]
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 61.03 [61.03]
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site