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...
The majority of jurisdictions provide immunity from tort liability for co-employees whose actions are within the course and scope of the employment [see Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 111.03]. Arkansas has a somewhat more restrictive rule, allowing co-employee immunity only where, in addition to being within the course and scope of the employment, the co-employee was “fulfilling the employer’s duty to provide a safe place to work” and was essentially acting as “an arm of the employer” [see Miller v. Enders, 2013 Ark. 23, 2013 Ark. LEXIS 38 (Jan. 31, 2013)]. Applying that more restrictive rule, a divided Arkansas appellate court recently held that an employee was entitled to immunity in a civil action filed against him by a co-employee who sustained injuries when the defendant drove a golf cart, in which the two were riding, into a retaining wall near a golf green where the two, as well as other employees, were participating in a “team-building” activity. That the driver-defendant was not plaintiff’s supervisor made no difference, indicated the majority. The employer had a responsibility of providing the injured employee with a “safe place to work,” and that duty extended to driving the golf cart during the team-building activity.
Reported by Thomas A. Robinson, J.D.
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance. Bracketed citations link to lexis.com.
See Curtis v. Lemna, 2013 Ark. App. LEXIS 669 (Nov. 6, 2013) [2013 Ark. App. LEXIS 669 (Nov. 6, 2013)]
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 111.03 [111.03]
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law.
_____________________________________________________________________
Special Discount Price $79*; Books shipping now to customers!
Keep track of how the workers' comp landscape is changing with this 400+ page compendium. Here's what you get:
View the brochure & table of contents.
View sample pages.
Order online or contact Christine Hyatt at ph. 937-247-8166, or Email: Christine.E.Hyatt@lexisnexis.com.
PROMO CODE: WCEIA
*Price does not include sales tax, shipping or handling. Price subject to change without notice. Discount cannot be combined with other offers. Expires 12/31/2013.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site