By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Just when you thought the right of “due process” was on the brink of destruction, the legislature...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Over the past several decades California has implemented broad legislative...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 89, No. 9 September 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 Thomas A. Robinson, co-author, Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law Editorial Note: All section references below are to Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, unless otherwise indicated...
By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board One of the most common reasons evaluating physicians flunk the apportionment validity test is due to their...
A New York appellate court affirmed a decision by the state’s Workers’ Compensation Board that awarded workers’ compensation benefits in connection with a construction worker’s fatal heart attack that occurred during his work shift, in spite of that the deceased employee’s preexisting risk factors — smoking and high, untreated cholesterol were also significant factors in the onset of the fatal attack. The construction worker’s employment need not be the sole cause of death. It was sufficient for workers’ compensation law purposes if the employment was only a contributing factor.
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 Pickerd v Paragon Envtl. Constr., Inc., 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3700 (3rd Dept., May 24, 2018)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 9.02.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see