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...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 89, No. 3 March 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...
A worker who sustained an admitted back injury and who was later fired for misconduct may nevertheless be entitled to temporary disability benefits if he or she can show an inability to work because of the work injury, held an Indiana appellate court. The court stressed that generally speaking, it was irrelevant whether the injured employee had quit or was fired, so long as the inability to work was caused by the work-related injury. Here the worker saw a physician who allowed the worker to return to work without medical restrictions. The worker argued with his supervisor over the level of his back pain—the worker said he told the supervisor that his back hurt too much to continue—and the incident escalated into an actual altercation. The injured worker, who earlier had been “coached” for anger issues, three an ice pack, nearly struck a coworker, and cursed the supervisor. These actions prompted the firing. The court noted that pursuant to Indiana Code § 22–3–3–7(c)(5), TTD benefits “may not be terminated by the employer unless the employee is unable or unavailable to work for reasons unrelated to the compensable injury.” The Board found that the worker’s inability to work was related to his injury. That decision rested on a determination of his credibility and weighing of the evidence. The appellate court would not substitute its judgment for that of the Board.
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 Masterbrand Cabinets v. Waid, 2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 145 (Mar. 30, 2017)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 84.04.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law