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’...
Where a New York farm worker took a short break to get a beer and see his girlfriend, who was moving her belongings into the worker’s employer-provided residence located across the road from the employer’s farm, that deviation was sufficient to remove the worker from the course and scope of his employment. Accordingly, it was not error for the Board to deny the worker’s claim for benefits in connection with serious injuries he sustained in a vehicular accident that occurred when the worker decided to return to work, crossed back over the road, but failed to yield the right of way to an oncoming vehicle.
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 Button v Button, 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7753 (3d Dept., Nov. 15, 2018)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 17.01.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, See