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...
A New Jersey appellate court held that while residential status may certainly be considered in determining whether the Garden State has a sufficient interest in a worker’s claim regarding an extraterritorial injury, it is insufficient on its own to confer jurisdiction. Quoting Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 142.01, et seq., the court added that under the facts of the case, the employer’s “localized interest” could not aid the worker since the employer, an international airline, was hardly a localized business and the worker’s job duties had been exclusively at the Philadelphia International Airport for many years. He had little, if any, connection to Newark, New Jersey, where the airline also had a presence.
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 Marconi v. United Airlines, 2019 N.J. Super. LEXIS 119 (July 22, 2019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 142.01.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see