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...
By Thomas A. Robinson, co-author, Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law Editorial Note: All section references below are to Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, unless otherwise indicated...
By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board One of the most common reasons evaluating physicians flunk the apportionment validity test is due to their...
Where an employee knowingly violated a company rule prohibiting employees from taking cell phones into the work area, her termination for the violation disqualified her from receiving temporary total disability benefits for an earlier, work-related injury since her actions amounted to a voluntary abandonment of her employment, held an Ohio appellate court recently. Acknowledging that in order for a written work rule to be not unreasonably applied, the employer must not only clearly define the prohibited conduct, it must also have previously identified the violation as a dischargeable offense. The court observed that here, however, the employee had been given three prior written warnings for cell phone violations. The last warning resulted in a three-day suspension and the suspension notice further indicated that a further violation could be grounds for termination. The court denied the requested writ of mandamus.
Reported by Thomas A. Robinson, J.D.
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance. Bracketed citations link to lexis.com.
See State ex rel. Haywood v. Industrial Comm’n, 2013 Ohio 2658, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 2637 (June 25, 2013) [2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 2637 (June 25, 2013)].
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 84.04 [84.04].
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.