By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Practitioners beware! Death benefit trials often raise intricate and unique evidentiary conundrums. Obtaining...
Oakland, CA – California’s State Average Weekly Wage (SAWW) rose nearly 3.8 percent in the year ending March 31, 2024, which will result in an increase in California workers’ compensation...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 89, No. 10 October 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 Hon. Robert G. Rassp, Presiding Judge, WCAB Los Angeles, California Division of Workers’ Compensation Disclaimer: The material and any opinions contained in this article are solely those of...
Oakland, CA – Migraine Drugs represented less than 1% of all prescriptions dispensed to California injured workers in 2023 but they consumed 4.7% of workers’ compensation drug payments, a nearly...
A federal district court, construing Illinois law, held in relevant part that a plaintiff had failed to make out a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge where her firing occurred some four years after she had filed her workers' compensation claim and where the proferred reason for the firing was the plaintiff's tardiness for work, disruptive behavior, and failure to follow other employer protocols. Plaintiff had initially filed a notice of injury following an incident in which she alleged she had been accidentally stuck with a needle. She contended that she suffered, inter alia, from PTSD because of the worry associated with the needle ***. The employer denied the claim and, according to the appellate court, the plaintiff did not pursue any sort of administrative review. Here, the passage of time between the injury/claim and the firing was crucial to the employer's defense and the primary reason the court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint.
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 Strong v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Labs., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19564 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 2, 2020)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 104.07.
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.