By Robert G. Rassp, author of The Lawyer’s Guide to the AMA Guides and California Workers’ Compensation (LexisNexis) Disclaimer: The material and any opinions contained in this treatise are...
Oakland, CA – Private self-insured claim volume in the California workers' compensation system fell 9.5% in 2023, producing the biggest year-to-year decline in private self-insured claim frequency...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board No matter the source of your media consumption, it seems that the topic...
By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Who doesn’t agree with the fact that “[w]e should not interpret or apply statutory language...
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’...
Where an injured employee sustained a laceration over the eye -- a condition admitted by the employer -- and later sought reinstatement of his disability benefits, the burden was on the employee to establish his entitlement to benefits based on an actual disability; the disability could not be presumed from the earlier admission by the employer. Accordingly, it was error for the WCJ to award unreasonable contest fees in the case. Not only had the employer contested entitlement to additional payments, it had prevailed in proving the employee did not suffer any actual disability. Its stance in defending the claim could hardly, therefore, be characterized as "unreasonable."
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the 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 Communication Test Design v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Simpson), 2020 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 275 (Apr. 22, 2020)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 133.03.
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.