LexisNexis has selected some recently issued noteworthy IMR decisions that illustrate the criteria that must be met to obtain authorization for a variety of different medical treatment modalities. LexisNexis...
By Christopher Mahon, LexisNexis Legal Insights Contributing Author A September 2024 study from the Workers Compensation Research Institute indicates that workers represented by an attorney in workers’...
By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board “Substantial Medical Evidence” is a ubiquitous catch-all phrase. When does it exist? When...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 90, No. 1 January 2025 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. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Cases of “first impression” seldom wander into our workers’ compensation world. When...
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a federal district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a borrowing employer who had been sued by its borrowed employee, a welder, after the welder sustained injuries when gasses exploded while he was performing welding work on an offshore oil platform. The borrowing employer had been hired to decommission an offshore platform and utilized the welder’s services in the project. The welder sought recovery under, inter alia, the Jones Act, alleging negligence on the part of the borrowing employer. The district court granted summary judgment on the basis that the welder was not a Jones Act “seaman.” The 5th Circuit Court noted that since its decision in Barrett v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 781 F.2d 1067 (5th Cir. 1986) (en banc), it had generally declined to find seaman status where the employee spent less than 30 percent of his time aboard ship. Moreover, the court reiterated that land-based maritime workers did not become seamen because they happened to be working on board a vessel when they were injured. The court said it was clear that the welder spent less than 30 percent of his time in service on any one vessel or group of vessels. The 30 percent general guideline had been approved in Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347, 368 (1995).
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. Bracketed citations link to lexis.com.
See Wilcox v. Wild Well Control, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12878 (5th Cir., July 24, 2015) [2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12878 (5th Cir., July 24, 2015)]
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 146.02 [146.02]
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site