CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 89, No. 7 July 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...
Havanis v. Calif. Dept. of Transportation (Board Panel Decision) By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board I. Medical apportionment is not the...
By Robert G. Rassp, author of The Lawyer’s Guide to the AMA Guides and California Workers’ Compensation (LexisNexis) Disclaimer: The material and any opinions contained in this treatise are...
Oakland, CA – Private self-insured claim volume in the California workers' compensation system fell 9.5% in 2023, producing the biggest year-to-year decline in private self-insured claim frequency...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board No matter the source of your media consumption, it seems that the topic...
It was appropriate for the ALJ to disregard the portion of the injured worker’s medical expert witness testimony that related to visual impairment where the expert, in assessing the overall permanent impairment of the injured worker, based his that assessment on the conclusions of an ophthalmologist whose report reflected a “20% vision disability,” which is not a recognized impairment rating under the AMA Guide’s. The appellate court said that it was, therefore, appropriate for the ALJ to reduce the medical expert’s overall impairment rating from 61 percent to 51 percent and in doing so, the ALJ did not reject the uncontested medical proof, but rather provided sufficient justification. The appellate court concluded that the Board erred when it reversed and remanded the ALJ’s decision, since it had inappropriately substituted its judgment for that of the fact-finder.
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 Fresenius Med. Care Holdings, Inc. v. Mitchell, 2016 Ky. App. LEXIS 149 (Aug. 26, 2016)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 80.07.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law