By Thomas A. Robinson, Co-Editor-in-Chief, Workers’ Compensation Emerging Issues Analysis ( LexisNexis ) (This article is excerpted from the upcoming 2024 Edition of Workers’ Compensation...
By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board The battle of the bill review experts is on! This issue was the focus of the recent Noteworthy Panel Decision...
By Hon. 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 article...
Oakland, CA – The decline in opioid use in California workers’ compensation has outpaced the decline among the state’s overall population according to a new California Workers’...
By Julius Young, Richard Jacobsmeyer, Barry Bloom, Editors-in-Chief for Herlick, California Workers’ Compensation Handbook [Note: This article is excerpted from the upcoming 2025 edition of Herlick...
Acknowledging that the New York Workers’ Compensation Board had broad discretion in setting rules regarding the content and formatting of an application for Board review (form RB-89), a state appellate court nevertheless held the rules, as written, failed to provide a “safety valve” allowing an applicant to seek permission to file a lengthier brief without jeopardizing the appeal. Accordingly, the rules were invalid. Here the employer sought Board review and submitted a 10-page brief, noting it had exceeded the 8-page limitation due to the complexity of the case. The Board found that to be an insufficient reason and summarily denied the request for Board review. The appellate court found the rule left an applicant in an untenable position and it, therefore, could not stand.
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 Matter of Daniels v. City of Rochester, 2019 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8944 (3d Dept., Dec. 12, Dec. 10, 2019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 124.08.
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.