Here's an interesting Board panel decision about a long-standing guardian ad litem who continued to represent the applicant after that party reached the age of majority. The WCAB said that the guardian...
Oakland – A new California Workers’ Compensation Institute (CWCI) study finds that average paid losses on California workers’ compensation lost-time claims fell immediately after legislative...
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...
A Maryland appellate court held that, under an appropriate fact pattern, an employer that declines to renew an employment agreement with an injured worker for which the parties anticipated a reasonable possibility of renewal may be liable for a retaliatory discharge claim. Observing that it was a case of first impression, the appellate court noted that Maryland's courts had heretofore only applied the tort of wrongful termination to employees at will and to contractual employees within the time parameters of their employment agreements. Here the worker had been employed as a teacher and had ever expectation that his contract would be renewed. When he sent an email indicating that he would be applying for workers' compensation benefits in connection with his alleged PTSD condition, the school board, several months later, sent him a follow-up email indicating his contract would not be renewed.
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 Miller-Phoenix v. Baltimore City Bd. of Sch. Comm’rs, 2020 Md. App. LEXIS 507 (May 29, 2020)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 104.07.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see
Sign up for the free LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation enewsletter at www.lexisnexis.com/wcnews.