In an apparent case of first impression, a Board panel granted an applicant’s petition to modify the terms in a previously approved Compromise and Release (C&R), to allow a change in the administration...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES
Vol. 88, No. 5 May 2023
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
In 2022 there were 7,490 wildfires in California. They burned 362,455 acres...
By Christopher Mahon
Should temporary workers be treated separately under workers’ compensation law due to additional employment and income risks they may incur after workplace injuries? A new study...
Here's a noteworthy panel decision where a family member conveyed essential information to the AME on behalf of the injured employee. The Lexis headnote is below.
CA - NOTEWORTHY PANEL DECISIONS...
In a divided decision, an Arizona appellate court affirmed the denial of a police officer’s PTSD claim, agreeing with the state’s Industrial Commission that the officer had failed to show that he had been subjected to “unexpected, unusual or extraordinary” stress [see A.R.S. § 23-1043.01(B)]. The officer had been called to the scene of a barricaded man. He watched a live videotape feed and, after the gunshots were heard, the officer saw other officers breach a garage door and then viewed the suspect crawl from the residence with a gunshot wound to the chest. The officer subsequently sought benefits for PTSD. Evidence at a hearing on the claim tended to show that the incident, while tragic, was not significantly rare. The officer employed an ingenious argument—that the Arizona statute (A.R.S. § 23-1043.01(B)) was unconstitutional because it allowed the police department and its insurer to wield what amounted to an “assumption of risk” defense. The majority of the court was not convinced, however. The Commission had made a factual determination and the majority would not substitute its judgment for that of the Commission.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the co-Editor-in-Chief and 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 Matthews v. Industrial Comm’n of Ariz., 2021 Ariz. App. LEXIS 129 (July 9, 2021)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 56.04.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see
Sign up for the free LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation enewsletter at www.lexisnexis.com/wcnews.