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...
Where an injured employee and the employer (and carrier) executed a settlement agreement, forwarding it on to the state’s Workers’ Compensation Commission for approval and the employee died from unrelated causes two days before the agreement was formally approved, the employee’s death did not constitute a material mistake of fact that would allow the employer to reopen the case and negate the settlement, held a state appellate court, in a split decision. The Court noted that under the normal procedures within Mississippi, such a settlement agreement was due to be approved unless the Commission specifically found that the settlement was not in the employee’s best interest. There had been a meeting of the minds; the settlement agreement stood.
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 Taylor v. Reliance Well Serv., 2017 Miss. App. LEXIS 296 (May 23, 2017)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 131.04.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see