By Hon. Robert G. Rassp, Presiding Judge, WCAB Los Angeles, California Division of Workers’ Compensation Disclaimer: The material and any opinions contained in this article are solely those of...
Oakland, CA – Migraine Drugs represented less than 1% of all prescriptions dispensed to California injured workers in 2023 but they consumed 4.7% of workers’ compensation drug payments, a nearly...
COMPLEX EMPLOYMENT ISSUES FOR CALIFORNIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION A new softbound supplement to Rassp & Herlick, California Workers’ Compensation Law 284 pages PIN #0006801214509 For...
By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Just when you thought the right of “due process” was on the brink of destruction, the legislature...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Over the past several decades California has implemented broad legislative...
The New York appellate court held the state's Board erred when it employed a "novel" standard for work-connectedness in determining the compensability of a claim filed by a claims examiner who worked from home. The employee contended he sustained injuries when he attempted to carry newly purchased office equipment upstairs during his lunch break. The Board affirmed a denial of the claim by the WCLJ, but the Third Department appellate court reversed. Finding the Board had utilized a new standard, under which work-at-home injuries would be compensable only if they occurred during regular work hours and while the employee was actively engaged in work duties as opposed, for example, to taking a short break or using the bathroom, the court held the new standard was not only unsupported by precedent, it was inconsistent with the remedial nature of the Workers' Compensation Law.
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 Capraro v Matrix Absence Mgt., 2020 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6171 (3d Dept., Oct. 22, 2020)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 16.10.
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.