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’...
Stressing that allowing a workers’ compensation insurer to intervene in a third-party civil action filed by an injured worker against the purported tortfeasor would not cause delay and would not necessarily cause confusion among potential jurors should the case ever go to trial, a federal district court allowed the requested intervention on discretionary grounds. The court observed that the insurer had not shown that it should be allowed to intervene as a matter of right but indicated further that since the case was still in its early stages and the insurer had apparently expended considerable sums in the underlying workers’ compensation claim, it had a sufficient interest in the civil action to warrant intervention, due to its subrogation rights under the Missouri Workers’ Compensation Act.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the co-Editor-in-Chief and 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 Henderson v. Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75730 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 20, 2021)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 116.05.
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.