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...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board It is well-settled law that federally recognized Indian Tribes have...
By Hon. Robert G. Rassp Disclaimer: The material and any opinions contained in this treatise are solely those of the authors and are not the opinions of the Department of Industrial Relations, Division...
The Supreme Court of Montana held that a hospital security guard failed to provide sufficient notice of injury to his employer when he made sketchy notations in a daily log book that he had been hit in the nose by an unruly psychiatric patient that he and others were attempting to restrain. The Court also observed that while Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-601 provided for a tolling of the statute of limitations for up to three years where the claimant did not have reason to connect his or her condition with the workplace, here the claimant had waited almost four years after the incident to file his claim. Accordingly, it was barred as untimely.
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 Richardson v. Indemnity Ins. Co. of N. Am., 2019 MT 160, 2019 Mont. LEXIS 260 (July 16, 2019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 126.01.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see