Here's an interesting Board panel decision about a long-standing guardian ad litem who continued to represent the applicant after that party reached the age of majority. The WCAB said that the guardian...
Oakland – A new California Workers’ Compensation Institute (CWCI) study finds that average paid losses on California workers’ compensation lost-time claims fell immediately after legislative...
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...
The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey, in a case of first impression, affirmed a workers’ compensation judge’s finding that an employer was required to reimburse its employee for the employee’s use of medical marijuana dispensed under the state’s Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act (MMA). The appellate court found there was no conflict between the MMA and federal law in the form of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.S. § 841) in as much as the employer was not required “to possess, manufacture or distribute marijuana,” but only to reimburse the former employee for his purchase of medical marijuana. Important to the court’s ruling was the fact that the injured employee had demonstrated the severity and chronic nature of his pain, his attempts to unsuccessfully alleviate the pain with multiple surgeries and medical modalities, and the efficacy of the prescribed medical marijuana. Accordingly, under these circumstances, the use of medical marijuana was reasonable and necessary.
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 Hager v. M&K Construction, 2020 N.J. Super. LEXIS 4 (Jan. 13, 2019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 94.06.
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.