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...
Oakland, CA – Part II of a California Workers’ Compensation Institute (CWCI) research series on low- volume/high-cost drugs used to treat California injured workers identifies three Dermatological drugs...
Reversing a decision by the state’s Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court of Kansas held that under the state’s Workers’ Compensation Act, an injured worker’s compensation must be reduced by any social security retirement benefits simultaneously received by that worker; that rule applied in spite of the fact that the claimant was already receiving Social Security retirement benefits prior to the date he was injured and also in spite of the fact that those Social Security benefits were unaffected by his earnings due to amendments made to the Social Security Act in 2000 [see Senior Citizens’ Freedom to Work Act of 2000, Pub. L. 106–182; 42 U.S.C. §§ 402–403 (2012)]. The Court acknowledged prior decisions in which the court had adopted the so-called Dickens exception, which held that the offset’s purpose was to prevent duplicative wage-loss benefits and that where workers’ compensation were not duplicative, such as where the injured worker’s wages were in addition to social security benefits already being received, the offset should not apply. Under the clear wording of the statute, Dickens and its progeny were overruled.
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 Hoesli v. Triplett, Inc., 2015 Kan. LEXIS 931 (Nov. 20, 2015) [2015 Kan. LEXIS 931 (Nov. 20, 2015)]
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 157.03 [157.03]
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see http://www.workcompwriter.com/amendments-to-social-security-act-in–2000-do-not-trump-kansas-offset-statute/
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