The U.S. Department of Labor has issued new data showing California's State Average Weekly Wage (SAWW) edged down 0.48 percent from $1,650 to $1,642 in the 12 months ending March 31, 2023. As a result...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 88, No. 11 November 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 Nearly two decades ago Senate Bill 899 was enacted and ushered in a...
LexisNexis has selected some recently issued noteworthy IMR decisions that illustrate the criteria that must be met to obtain authorization for a variety of different medical treatment modalities. LexisNexis...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Early in the COVID-19 pandemic we learned that nursing care facilities...
A Missouri appellate court affirmed an award of permanent total disability benefits against the state’s Second Injury Fund where claimant’s lunchroom chair collapsed as he sat eating lunch. The claimant injured his low back and developed intense pain in his low back and leg. The Second Injury Fund contended (a) that the legislature’s 2005 amendments had eliminated recovery under the “personal comfort” doctrine and (b) that workers’ compensation benefits were not available for injuries and diseases caused by normal activities of everyday life that coincidentally occurred at work. The appellate court indicated the personal comfort doctrine had not been abrogated by the 2005 amendments. The court added that if the legislature wanted to abrogate the personal comfort doctrine and restrict coverage to those injuries occurring only while an employee was performing specific work duties and not while performing incidental duties such as attending to his or her personal comfort at work, it could have done so explicitly. It did not. The court added that while sitting in a chair was an activity common in normal non-employment life, whether or not the chair might collapse was dependent upon the particular chair. Claimant here did not suffer a general injury from the act of sitting itself, which could have occurred anywhere he sat down, but a particular injury because the chair he sat on collapsed. He was not exposed to that chair anywhere else but at work.
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 Wright v. Treasurer of Mo. Second Injury Fund, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1159 (Nov. 10, 2015) [2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1159 (Nov. 10, 2015)]
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 21.02 [21.02]
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law.