By Hon. Robert G. Rassp, Presiding Judge, WCAB Los Angeles, California Division of Workers’ Compensation Disclaimer: The material and any opinions contained in this article are solely those of...
Oakland, CA – Migraine Drugs represented less than 1% of all prescriptions dispensed to California injured workers in 2023 but they consumed 4.7% of workers’ compensation drug payments, a nearly...
COMPLEX EMPLOYMENT ISSUES FOR CALIFORNIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION A new softbound supplement to Rassp & Herlick, California Workers’ Compensation Law 284 pages PIN #0006801214509 For...
By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Just when you thought the right of “due process” was on the brink of destruction, the legislature...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Over the past several decades California has implemented broad legislative...
An Ohio home health aide who worked, at her employer’s direction, at the home of various clients and who sustained injuries in an auto accident as she traveled from one client’s home to that of another, was not as a matter of law a fixed-situs employee for purposes of the going and coming rule. It was error, therefore, for the trial court to grant summary judgment in favor of the employer with regard to the employee’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits. The appellate court stressed that Ohio’s coming-and-going rule only applies to fixed-situs employees. It noted that there was conflict among the various district appellate courts as to whether home health aides and nurses were fixed-situs employees. The court said that here there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether the aide was a fixed-situs employee. Although she was not paid for travel time, her travel was subject to reimbursement, and was also governed by conditions imposed by the employer. In addition, the aide had no office at the employer’s facility, travel was an essential feature of her job, and she was assigned to see more than one client on the date of her injury. Further, the accident occurred minutes after she left the first client’s home, and while en route to the second client, a duty required by the employer.
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 Franklin v. BHC Servs., 2017-Ohio–655, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 646 (Feb. 23, 2017)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 13.01.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law