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...
An award of benefits for an employee’s stress fracture in her right foot was appropriate, held a Mississippi appellate court, in spite of the fact that her physician had testified that the employee’s repetitive activity at work was a “possible” cause of her injury. The court stressed that such medical testimony had not stood alone; it was buttressed by other evidence that the stress fracture was not caused by any sort of traumatic or specific event and additional evidence to show that the employee had not engaged in other repetitive activity during the relevant time frame. The court reminded the employer that even “somewhat ambiguous” medical testimony was sufficient to support a finding of compensability as long as the relevant medical findings supported a causal connection.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the co-Editor-in-Chief and 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 Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Loveless, 2021 Miss. App. LEXIS 75 (Feb. 23, 2021)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 130.06.
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.