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’...
Oakland, CA -- Payments for medical-legal evaluations and reports used to resolve medical disputes in California work injury claims have increased more than expected since a new Med-Legal Fee Schedule...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 89, No. 6 June 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. Robert G. Rassp and Hon. Clint Feddersen Questioning the Vocational Expert [a] Depositions Counsel will often need to take the deposition of the vocation expert. Live testimony of a vocational...
Oakland, CA – A bill that would give a presumption of compensability to farmworker heat-related injury claims if the employer is found to be out of compliance with Cal/OSHA’s outdoor heat illness...
Affirming a November 2020 decision by a lower appellate court, the Supreme Court of Ohio held the state Industrial Commission was within its powers when it rejected a proposed settlement agreement executed by representatives of an employer and an injured employee that purported to dispose of the employee’s violation of specific safety requirements (VSSR) claim. The high court agreed that the Commission had broad discretion in approving such agreements. Its discretion allowed it to judge whether the settlement was fair and equitable. The employer had contended that the statute only allowed the Commission to examine the form of the agreement, that the parties should be free to come to their own bargain. The court noted that prior to the settlement, the Commission had sent the parties a letter indicating the award would probably range between $21,000 and $70,000. Under those circumstances, the Commission was within its power to refuse a settlement for a lump-sum payment of $2,000.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the co-Editor-in-Chief and 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 State ex rel. Zarbana Indus. v. Indus. Comm’n of Ohio, 2021-Ohio-3669, 2021 Ohio LEXIS 2073 (Oct. 19, 2021)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 105.06.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see
Sign up for the free LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation enewsletter at www.lexisnexis.com/wcnews.