Position paper presented at CSIMS 2024 by Hon. Robert G. Rassp, Chairman of the Board of Directors, Friends Research Institute (friendsresearch.org) Disclaimers: The opinions expressed in this article...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 89, No. 8 August 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...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board The June 13, 2024 edition of the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation...
LexisNexis has selected some of the top “noteworthy” panel decisions issued by the California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board during the period January through June 2024. The first...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board It is well understood that the California Insurance Guarantee Association...
An “alternate employer endorsement” written into the workers’ compensation insurance policy maintained by an employment staffing company that named the defendant special employer as an additional insured satisfied the requirements of Mass. Gen. Laws c. 152, §§ 15 and 18, such that the special employer was immune from common-law liability under the Workers’ Compensation Act while an employee was providing services to the special employer on assignment from the general employer and who had been paid workers’ compensation benefits by the general employer’s insurer. Citing Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the court stressed that to be eligible for the limited immunity from suit provided by the Act, a defendant must satisfy a two-part test: (1) the employer must be an insured person liable for the payment of workers’ compensation benefits to the injured employee, and (2) the employer must be the direct employer of the employee.” Because the special employer controlled the activity of the worker there was no issue as to the second factor. As to the first factor, under § 18, where the general and special employers specifically agreed that the general employer would provide workers’ compensation coverage, the special employer could still be considered the employer for exclusive remedy purposes. The defendant met both parts of the test and was immune from suit.
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 Molina v. State Garden, Inc., 2015 Mass. App. LEXIS 128 (Sept. 3, 2015) [2015 Mass. App. LEXIS 128 (Sept. 3, 2015)]
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 111.01 [111.01]
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law.