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 a Missouri husband and wife operated a local bakery and each separately procured policies of workers’ compensation insurance for the business, cancellation of one of the policies nevertheless had to be in conformity with state law, held the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Since the so-called cancellation did not follow the statutory guidelines, the business was protected by two policies and, following a work-related death by one of the bakery employees in an auto accident, both insurers were responsible for one-half the claims costs (including death benefits). The Court added that there was no mutual mistake of fact as between the business and the insurance company who disputed that it owed one half the loss.
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 Employers Preferred Ins. Co. v. Hartford Accident and Indem. Co., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 851 (8th Cir., Jan. 10, 2019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 150.03.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see