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...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 89, No. 9 September 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...
Where a worker admitted that he was responsible for his own equipment, provided his own labor and equipment, and was responsible for his own Workers' Compensation insurance, it was appropriate for the fact-finder to determine that he was an independent contractor and not an employee. Accordingly, as an independent contractor, he could not maintain a retaliatory discharge action under Ohio Rev. Code § 4123.90.
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 DeLong v. Thompson, 2018-Ohio-770, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 808 (Mar. 1, 2018)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 104.07.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law