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’...
Oakland, CA -- Payments for medical-legal evaluations and reports used to resolve medical disputes in California work injury claims have increased more than expected since a new Med-Legal Fee Schedule...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 89, No. 6 June 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 and Hon. Clint Feddersen Questioning the Vocational Expert [a] Depositions Counsel will often need to take the deposition of the vocation expert. Live testimony of a vocational...
Oakland, CA – A bill that would give a presumption of compensability to farmworker heat-related injury claims if the employer is found to be out of compliance with Cal/OSHA’s outdoor heat illness...
Quoting Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, and reiterating the usual, “two-cause” rule: that where a work-related disability combines with a nonwork-related disability to prevent the injured worker from continuing to work, the employer is responsible for the entire disability, the Supreme Court of Virginia held that nevertheless, under the facts of the case, the injured worker was not entitled to total disability benefits since his actual disability was caused by kidney failure related to a preexisting condition unrelated to his work and not by a work-related injury to his arm. The Court stressed that the “two-cause” rule did not apply since the worker’s disability did not have two causes, but only one, which was not connected to the employment.
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 Carrington v. Aquatic Co., 2019 Va. LEXIS 80 (July 18, 2019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 46.03.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see