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 there was virtually no evidence that a construction worker’s actions were controlled by the purported employer and where it also appeared that the purported employer exercised little, if any, control over the injured worker’s work or employment actions and the worker consented to be treated, for W-2/tax purposes, as an independent contractor, it was not error for the Commission to make a finding that the worker was not an employee.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is the co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.
See Axelson v. Pifer Constr., Inc., 2017 Va. App. LEXIS 218 (Aug. 22, 2017)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 111.04.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law