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...
Citing a 1990 decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia [Williams v. Corbett, 260 Ga. 668, 398 SE2d 1 (1990)], as controlling, a state appellate court held that within the context of a workers’ compensation claim, a meretricious relationship works to deny dependency benefits, even if actual dependency exists. Here the claimant had lived with the deceased employee for some 13 years before the employee sustained fatal injuries in a work-related fall. She sought death benefits, contending she was wholly dependent upon the deceased employee. The appellate court agreed with the ALJ that the claimant had made a showing of dependency, but indicated that under the Williams decision, she could not recover since she was not legally married to the deceased at the time of his death.
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.
See Sanchez v. Carter, 2017 Ga. App. LEXIS 465 (Oct. 17, 2017)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 96.02.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see