Board Panel Opinion Provides a Succinct Explanation By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board The process for...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 89, No. 4 April 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. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Several months ago, an article in LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation...
By William Tappin, Esq., Law Offices of Tappin & Associates, Sierra Madre, CA There has been a lot of confusion with respect to whether ERISA preempts state laws regarding numerous programs, including...
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...
An Ohio appellate court has reversed, in part, a trial court’s decision granting summary judgment to a defendant-employer in a retaliatory discharge action filed against it by a former employee, finding that there was an issue of fact as to whether the proferred reason for terminating the plaintiff was a pretext. The appellate court indicated that plaintiff had clearly established a prima facie case of workers’ compensation retaliation, but that the trial court found that the employer had articulated a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for terminating him—poor performance. The court noted, however, that plaintiff presented evidence that prior to his work-related injury, he had received glowing performance reviews and that things changed following his injury. Plaintiff presented evidence that the poor reviews came only he gave the employer notice that he needed an MRI examination and that he had hired an attorney. Moreover, his firing took place only one day after plaintiff’s absence for muscle spasms related to his original injury. Finally, the court observed that there was evidence that another employee had similar performance to plaintiff—but no workers’ compensation claim—and that employee had not been disciplined or terminated. The court indicated plaintiff would need to prove his case, but he had established factual issues that precluded summary judgment.
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. Bracketed citations link to lexis.com.
See Harris v. OHNH EMP, LLC, 2015-Ohio–3212, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 3128 (Aug. 12, 2015) [2015-Ohio–3212, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 3128 (Aug. 12, 2015)]
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 104.07 [104.07]
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site