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...
Signaling that if the New York Workers’ Compensation Board fails to use N.Y. Workers’ Comp. Law § 14(1) to compute an injured worker’s average weekly wage, it must either use § 14(2), which computes the AWW for a six-day worker by multiplying his or her daily wage by 300, or provide an explanation as to why that subsection could not be used; it may not merely move on to § 14(3), which utilizes a 200-multiplier, held a state appellate court. Here the claimant had worked six days per week for a 13-week period before sustaining work-related injuries. There was no question that § 14(1) didn’t apply, but the Board chose subsection (3) without further explanation. The case was remanded for a proper determination.
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 Molina v. Icon Parking LLC, 2019 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7497 (3d Dept. Oct. 17, 2019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 93.01.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see