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...
Where a New York claimant failed to complete the information “box” for question 13 of the RB-89 form (Application for Review), within which claimant would otherwise have provided details as to “[h]earing dates, [t]ranscripts, [d]ocuments, [e]xhibits, and other evidence that she would rely upon in her administrative appeal, the Application was defective and the Workers' Compensation Board was within its discretion to deny claimant's application on that basis, held a state appellate court. The court noted that claimant had been represented by counsel. It stressed that the RB-89 was no cover sheet; it was an important part of the application for review.
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 Jones v Human Resources Admin., 2019 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5343 (July 3, 2019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 124.08.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see