CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 89, No. 7 July 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...
Havanis v. Calif. Dept. of Transportation (Board Panel Decision) By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board I. Medical apportionment is not the...
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...
In Utah, a worker ordinarily need not show that his or her work-related injury was caused by unusual or extraordinary stress or strain. Applying the framework established in Allen v. Industrial Comm’n, 729 P.2d 15 (Utah 1986), and its progeny, however, a state appellate court held that unusual or extraordinary stress or strain isrequired if the worker’s claimed injury is also associated with a preexisting condition. Accordingly, where a delivery driver suffered four separate work-related injuries to the driver’s lower back, but the fourth did not arise from any unusual or extraordinary strain or stress, he was appropriately denied compensation for disability benefits and medical benefits associated with that claim.
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 Estate of Layton v. Labor Comm’n, 2019 UT App 59, 2019 Utah App. LEXIS 59 (Apr. 18, 2019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 46.01.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see