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...
A divided Maryland appellate court held sufficient evidence existed to support a finding that a paramedic/firefighter had, over time, developed meniscal tears in his right knee and that he, therefore, qualified for benefits for an occupational disease under the state’s Workers’ Compensation Act. Quoting Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, agreed that the nature of the claimant’s work included repetitive bending and kneeling. The Court agreed that in one sense the claimant’s meniscal tears were “an ordinary disease of life,” but the court said that did not preclude recovery where the particular conditions of the employment actually caused the condition. The claimant need not show that his or her condition was “unique” to the employment..
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 Baltimore County v. Quinlan, 2019 Md. LEXIS 439 (August 26, 2019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 52.03.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see