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...
While a Kentucky physician must base his or her impairment rating regarding an injured worker on the AMA Guides (5th Ed.), the physician is not required to park his or her medical judgment at the examining room door. He or she may utilize clinical skill and judgment in assessing the level of impairment. Thus, while the AMA Guides required the evaluation of the worker’s shoulder impairment to be based upon “active” range of motion measurements, the physician was entitled to use passive measurements in determining the impairment level where the physician felt the ROM measurements obtained from an injured worker were implausible and indicative of poor effort.
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 Cunningham v. Quad/Graphics, Inc., 2017 Ky. App. LEXIS 268 (June 16, 2017)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 80.07.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see