By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Just when you thought the right of “due process” was on the brink of destruction, the legislature...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Over the past several decades California has implemented broad legislative...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 89, No. 9 September 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 Thomas A. Robinson, co-author, Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law Editorial Note: All section references below are to Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, unless otherwise indicated...
By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board One of the most common reasons evaluating physicians flunk the apportionment validity test is due to their...
Where an employee of a staffing agency signed an agreement that provided, in relevant part, that he would be considered an employee of the agency’s client “for Workers’ Compensation purposes only,” the employee could not maintain a tort action against the client; under the state’s workers’ compensation laws, the employee would also be considered the client’s employee. The court acknowledged that the employer-employee relationship not exist without the consent of the employee. The court added, however, that here such consent was both explicit and implicit.
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 Forks v. EnCon Wash. LLC, 2017 Wash. App. LEXIS 682 (Mar. 21, 2017)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 111.01.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law