The “going and coming” rule, which generally holds that a worker’s commute to and from home is outside the scope of the employment if he or she has a fixed locus of employment and fixed hours, could also be utilized in a negligence action... Read More

The failure, on the part of an injured employee, to abide by lifting restrictions could not alone be sufficient to constitute an independent intervening cause that would relieve his or her employer (or carrier) from the responsibility for continued workers’... Read More

Answering a restated certified question from the U.S. District Court (Eastern District of Virginia), the Supreme Court of Virginia, in a deeply divided 4-3 decision, held that an employer owed a duty of care to an employee's family member who alleged... Read More

Construing Oklahoma law, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a federal district court’s dismissal of a negligence action filed against the sole stockholder of a worker’s employer, finding the district court failed to consider the stockholder's... Read More

Under California’s “required vehicle” exception to the going and coming rule, injuries sustained during the commute are said to arise out of and in the course of the employment if the employer required the employee to utilize her personal... Read More

A New York court has found, in relevant part, that the exclusive remedy defense may not be maintained by a former employer in a civil action filed against it by plaintiffs, all former lifeguards at the defendant's parks, alleging that defendant surreptitiously... Read More

California employer found not negligent in connection with employee’s negative reaction to flu vaccination. Workers’ compensation insurer was entitled to $414,000 credit from third-party recovery by injured employee again flu vaccination manufacturer... Read More

Where an injured worker (or the worker’s dependents) have accepted workers’ compensation benefits and have further sought to recover over against one or more third parties that are responsible for the worker’s injuries, that worker—or... Read More

A negligence action filed by a teacher’s aide against her employer and an assistant principal following an incident in which the aide was assaulted and beaten by a student was barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of New York’s Workers’... Read More

Here’s the fourth batch of advanced postings for the January 2015 issue of Cal. Comp. Cases. Lexis.com and Lexis Advance subscribers can link to the cases to read the complete headnotes and summaries. © Copyright 2015 LexisNexis. All... Read More

Where a surviving spouse of a worker killed in a work-related car accident filed a wrongful death action in a state court and joined a separate federal wrongful death action filed by her son, and the parties eventually settled the claim with the federal... Read More

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31–293a creates several exceptions to the otherwise applicable rule that a workers’ compensation claim for benefits is the exclusive remedy that an employee may pursue against a fellow employee. One such exception allows... Read More

Citing Garcia v. Pittsylvania County Service Authority , 845 F.2d 465 (4th Cir. 1988), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a federal district court’s dismissal, on exclusive remedy grounds, of a negligence action filed by a North Carolina... Read More

Changes to section 287.120.1 lowered the burden of proof to sue a co-worker based on common law, according to the court of appeals, when it reversed a dismissal for failure to state a claim. Leeper v Asmus WD 76772 (May 27, 2014), 2014 MO App Lexis 605... Read More

Here’s the fourth batch of advanced postings for the April 2014 issue of Cal. Comp. Cases. Lexis.com and Lexis Advance subscribers can link to the case to read the complete headnotes and summaries . © Copyright 2014 LexisNexis. All rights... Read More