By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board
It is well-settled law that federally recognized Indian Tribes have...
By Hon. Robert G. Rassp
Disclaimer: The material and any opinions contained in this treatise are solely those of the authors and are not the opinions of the Department of Industrial Relations, Division...
By Hon. Robert G. Rassp, Presiding Judge, and Hon. Clint Feddersen, Workers’ Compensation Judge
(This article is excerpted from California Workers' Compensation Discovery (LexisNexis).)
By Richard B. Rubenstein, Esq., Livingston, NJ
Will COVID-19 Presumptions and IARC Monograph#132 Be Game-changers?
The original Grand Bargain of workers’ compensation played no favorites: All...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES
Vol. 88, No. 8 August 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...
Citing earlier precedent from the state’s Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals of Indiana held that for purposes of the Workers’ Compensation Act a “leased” or temporary employee is generally considered the joint employee of both the “lessor” and “lessee,” [see Ind. Code § 22-3-6-1(a)]. Accordingly, the court was not required to examine the “seven-factor” test established in GKN Co. v. Magness, 744 N.E.2d 397, 402 (Ind. 2001) to determine whether there was sufficient evidence of direct control by either lessor or lessee. An employee’s exclusive remedy against both the employer (the leasing company) and the company to whom he or she was leased is the Workers’ Compensation Act. Such treatment eliminates the potential for disparate treatment between a permanent employee and a temporary employee who do the same job and suffer the same injuries in an accident, indicated the court.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is a leading commentator and expert on the law of workers’ compensation.
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance. Bracketed citations link to lexis.com.
See Frontz v. Middletown Enters., Inc., 2014 Ind. App. LEXIS 417 (Aug. 26, 2014) [2014 Ind. App. LEXIS 417 (Aug. 26, 2014)]
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 68.01, 111.01 [68.01, 111.01]
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