Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Applicant’s Two Injuries Combined Met Requisite 51 Percent Causation Standard for Compensable Psychiatric Injury: Cal. Comp. Cases May Advanced Postings (5/10/2016)

May 11, 2016 (1 min read)

Here’s the latest batch of advanced postings for the May 2016 issue of Cal. Comp. Cases. and Lexis Advance subscribers can link to the case to read the complete headnotes and summaries.

© Copyright 2016 LexisNexis. All rights reserved.

State of California, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (California Mens Colony), legally uninsured, administered by State Compensation Insurance Fund, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Mark Van Dyk, Respondents,, Lexis Advance

Psychiatric Injury—Predominant Cause Standard of Proof—Apportionment of Causation—WCAB affirmed WCJ’s finding that applicant correctional officer, who settled his claim for 6/17/2005 specific lumbar spine injury and subsequently incurred admitted cumulative trauma to his back between 4/31/2007 and 1/4/2012, also suffered compensable psychiatric injury through 1/4/2012, when WCAB concluded that…

Regina Hollins, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, PSI, adjusted by Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Respondents,, Lexis Advance

Discrimination—Labor Code § 132a—WCAB affirmed WCJ’s finding that defendant did not violate Labor Code § 132a based on process implemented in returning applicant data entry clerk to work following industrial injury to her right upper extremity and neck, or in adjustment of applicant’s benefit package, when WCAB concluded that...

Timothy James, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Paramount Pictures Corporation, aka Paramount Studios, PSI, administered by Murphy and Beane, Respondents,, Lexis Advance

Petitions for Writ of Review—Non-Final Orders—Court of Appeal dismissed petition for writ of review of WCAB order because WCAB order was not final order as required by Labor Code §§ 5900, 5901, when petitioners were appealing WCAB order in which WCAB (1) held that…