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’...
Stressing the crucial difference between an “unexplained” fall and an “idiopathic” fall, a North Carolina appellate court affirmed the denial of benefits to a municipal worker who suffered injuries when he fainted and collapsed after getting choked on an e-cigarette. Noting that the Commission’s denial had been based upon its finding that the worker’s fainting and fall resulted from the worker’s idiopathic conditions — extreme hypertension, highly elevated blood sugar levels, and a vasovagal reaction to his coughing and choking upon taking his first puff of the e-cigarette — and not to work-related risks, the appellate court agreed that substantial evidence supported the finding that the worker’s injuries did not arise out of and in the course of the employment.
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 Brooks v. City of Winston-Salem, 2018 N.C. App. LEXIS 504 (May 15, 2018)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 7.04.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see