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’...
In spite of what the Missouri appellate court said was a “poorly written” opinion by an ALJ (adopted and incorporated by the state’s Labor & Industrial Relations Commission), a state appellate court panel held there was still more than sufficient evidence to affirm the denial of workers’ compensation benefits to a worker who claimed his tinnitus condition was causally connected to a work-related fight that broke out between the claimant/worker and a co-worker. The claimant sustained admitted injuries to his face and head in the fight, but the appellate court noted, he did not seek benefits for tinnitus until three years later, after he had secured social security disability benefits. The court observed that the tinnitus had not been mentioned in claimant’s social security preceding and the employer’s expert had completely contradicted the expert offered by the claimant.
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 Schlereth v. Aramark Uniform Servs., 2019 Mo. App. LEXIS 1766 (Nov. 12, 2019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 130.05.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see
Sign up for the free LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation enewsletter at www.lexisnexis.com/wcnews.