CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 89, No. 7 July 2024 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...
Havanis v. Calif. Dept. of Transportation (Board Panel Decision) By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board I. Medical apportionment is not the...
By 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 treatise are...
Oakland, CA – Private self-insured claim volume in the California workers' compensation system fell 9.5% in 2023, producing the biggest year-to-year decline in private self-insured claim frequency...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board No matter the source of your media consumption, it seems that the topic...
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