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...
Applying Professor Larson’s three-part test for assessing whether a special employee relationship has formed, a New Jersey appellate court found that a golf course superintendent was the employee of both a management company that operated a golf club and the golf club itself. Accordingly, the exclusive remedy provisions of the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Act barred the superintendent’s civil action filed against both corporations for injuries the superintendent sustained when he fell in the living quarters that had been provided to him as part of his compensation package. Under the Larson test, when a general employer lends an employee to a special employer, the special employer becomes liable for workers’ compensation only if: (a) the employee has made a contract of hire, express or implied, with the special employer; (b) The work being done is essentially that of the special employer; and (c) The special employer has the right to control the details of the work. The court held that all three conditions were satisfied in relation to both corporations. Both were liable for workmen’s compensation and both, therefore, could utilize the exclusivity defense.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is a leading commentator and expert on the law of workers’ compensation.
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance. Bracketed citations link to lexis.com.
See Hanisko v. Billy Casper Golf Management, Inc., 2014 N.J. Super. LEXIS 128 (Sept. 8, 2014) [2014 N.J. Super. LEXIS 128 (Sept. 8, 2014)]
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 68.01 [68.01]
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