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...
The Supreme Court of Wyoming held that a claimant’s late filing of his claim was excused under the circumstances of the case and both the employer and the Division of Workers’ Compensation were barred from utilizing the statute of limitations defense where their separate actions lulled the claimant into believing he did not have to file his claim within the required time frame. Noting that the doctrine of equitable estoppel applied in workers’ compensation cases, the Court stressed that its holding did not eliminate the application of the statute of limitations; it merely prevented the employer and the Division from using it as a defense.
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 Sweeralla v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Workforce Servs., Workers’ Compensation Div., 2019 WY 91 (Sept. 6, 2019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 126.09.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see