By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board The battle of the bill review experts is on! This issue was the focus of the recent Noteworthy Panel Decision...
By Hon. 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 article...
Oakland, CA – The decline in opioid use in California workers’ compensation has outpaced the decline among the state’s overall population according to a new California Workers’...
By Julius Young, Richard Jacobsmeyer, Barry Bloom, Editors-in-Chief for Herlick, California Workers’ Compensation Handbook [Note: This article is excerpted from the upcoming 2025 edition of Herlick...
By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Practitioners beware! Death benefit trials often raise intricate and unique evidentiary conundrums. Obtaining...
Where the former employee’s medical expert candidly allowed that he could not offer a medical opinion to a degree of absolute certainty that removed all speculation, but that he could say, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the former employee had experienced a new injury that materially aggravated the former employee’s prior back condition, his testimony was not mere speculation and the Industrial Commission did not err in relying in part on that expert testimony in awarding workers’ compensation benefits to the employee.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is the co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.
See Harris v. Southern Commercial Glass, 2016 N.C. App. LEXIS 863 (Aug. 16, 2016)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 130.06.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law