By Thomas A. Robinson, Co-Editor-in-Chief, Workers’ Compensation Emerging Issues Analysis (LexisNexis) As we move through the third decade of the twenty-first century, the United States remains...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Industrially injured workers in California are entitled to receive...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 88, No. 9 September 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 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...
Where a post-injury drug test could not be offered as evidence because it had not been verified according to the requirements described in La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1081, it would also be improper to allow the use of the test to establish a fraud defense under La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1208, held a Louisiana appellate court. The court said it would be illogical to prohibit the unconfirmed drug test to be used to deny benefits under one statutory provision only to allow it to disqualify a claimant from receiving benefits under another.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.
See Parson v. Truck Parts & Equip., Inc., 2019-00743 (La. 10/01/19), 2019 La. LEXIS 2437 (Oct. 1, 2019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 36.01.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see