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...
Signaling that if the New York Workers’ Compensation Board fails to use N.Y. Workers’ Comp. Law § 14(1) to compute an injured worker’s average weekly wage, it must either use § 14(2), which computes the AWW for a six-day worker by multiplying his or her daily wage by 300, or provide an explanation as to why that subsection could not be used; it may not merely move on to § 14(3), which utilizes a 200-multiplier, held a state appellate court. Here the claimant had worked six days per week for a 13-week period before sustaining work-related injuries. There was no question that § 14(1) didn’t apply, but the Board chose subsection (3) without further explanation. The case was remanded for a proper determination.
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 Matter of Molina v. Icon Parking LLC, 2019 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7497 (3d Dept. Oct. 17, 2019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 93.01.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see