By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Appeals Board panel decisions that rescind a WCJ’s decision and...
Board Panel Opinion Provides a Succinct Explanation By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board The process for...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 89, No. 4 April 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...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Several months ago, an article in LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation...
By William Tappin, Esq., Law Offices of Tappin & Associates, Sierra Madre, CA There has been a lot of confusion with respect to whether ERISA preempts state laws regarding numerous programs, including...
Ordinarily, where a New York employer executes an indemnification agreement after its employee sustains a work-related injury, a third party sued in tort by the injured employee may not raise the existence of the indemnification agreement to shield it from a damage assessment. Here, however, a state appellate court held that there was an issue of fact as to whether the employer had intended the agreement to have retroactive effect. Under those circumstances, the trial court appropriately refused to dismiss the third-party’s indemnity claim against the plaintiff’s employer. The court stressed that an indemnification agreement that is executed after a plaintiff’s accident may only be applied retroactively where it is established that (1) the agreement was made as of a date prior to the accident, and (2) the parties intended the agreement to apply as of that prior date.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the co-Editor-in-Chief and 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 Lorica v. Krug, 2021 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3736 (3D Dept., June 10, 2021)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 121.03.
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.