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...
In a divided decision, the Supreme Court of North Carolina, quoting Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 143.03[4], held that once an employment contract has been made—in this case, in South Carolina—the contract’s situs is not changed merely because the contract is modified in North Carolina by a change in salary or benefits. Accordingly, where a Georgia resident accepted employment as a delivery truck driver by signing an offer letter in South Carolina, and began making deliveries in South Carolina and Georgia, the situs of the employment contract was South Carolina. When the employer subsequently closed its Columbia, SC office and administratively transferred the employee to its Charlotte, NC office—at somewhat higher pay, but with the same job title—the contract’s situs did not change. A decision by the North Carolina Court of Appeals that the Industrial Commission had jurisdiction of the employee’s work-related injury claim—which occurred in Georgia—was, therefore, erroneous, held the majority of the Court. The employee’s act of consenting to being “transferred” did not mean the employment contract had been “made in this State” for purposes of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97–36.
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. Bracketed citations link to lexis.com.
See Burley v. U.S. Foods, Inc., 2015 N.C. LEXIS 929 (Sept. 25, 2015) [2015 N.C. LEXIS 929 (Sept. 25, 2015)]
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 143.03 [143.03]
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site