In an apparent case of first impression, a Board panel granted an applicant’s petition to modify the terms in a previously approved Compromise and Release (C&R), to allow a change in the administration...
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...
A short text message sent only to a physician, and not to opposing counsel, notifying the doctor that his upcoming deposition would address claimant’s schedule loss of use, was not the sort of ex partecommunication that gave the appearance of impropriety or improper interference on the part of the “offending” attorney. Accordingly, it was error for the New York Board to bar the introduction of the physician’s report and testimony at a later hearing, indicated a divided state appellate court. The majority said the message was only “ministerial in nature” and did not reflect an effort to influence the physician’s testimony or opinion.
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 Knapp v. Bette & Cring LLC, 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8159 (Nov. 29, 2018)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 127.05.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see