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’...
Applying the 4-part test described in Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 34.01, et seq., a Tennessee appellate court affirmed a state trial court’s determination that an employer failed to show that one of its healthcare workers willfully violated the employer’s physical restraint policy in interacting with a resident at the employer’s therapeutic residential treatment facility. While the worker acknowledged that he knew about the employer’s policy that residents were to be free from restraint, the court held that the employer had failed to prove the fourth element of the Larsontest: that the employee’s action was more than a mere error in judgment, negligence, or even recklessness.
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 Tennessee Clinical Sch., LLC v. Johns, 2019 Tenn. LEXIS 295 (Aug. 2, 1019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 34.01.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see