By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board The existence of an employment relationship is the lynchpin of workers’...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board For readers who may not be familiar with the Workers’ Compensation...
The U.S. Department of Labor has issued new data showing California's State Average Weekly Wage (SAWW) edged down 0.48 percent from $1,650 to $1,642 in the 12 months ending March 31, 2023. As a result...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 88, No. 11 November 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 Nearly two decades ago Senate Bill 899 was enacted and ushered in a...
Noting that the surviving spouse had the burden of showing a causal connection between his wife’s death and her employment, and stressing that speculative medical evidence was insufficient, a New York appellate court affirmed a decision by the New York Workers’ Compensation Board that denied the surviving spouse’s claim for death benefits. The surviving spouse had testified that his wife had developed depression after enduring multiple surgeries to treat a work-related injury and that she died after a night of heavy drinking and a possible narcotic overdose. Claimant’s expert, who never treated or examined the decedent, reviewed the medical record and spoke to the surviving spouse about his wife’s condition. The expert indicated the decedent’s compensable injuries had led to pain and “significant emotional trauma” that, in turn, caused substance abuse issues that contributed to her death. The employer’s expert contradicted that opinion and the Board rejected claimant’s expert’s opinion as speculative. The appellate court indicated it was for the Board to make a determination as to the weight to be given to the medical evidence. It had favored the employer’s expert and the appellate court could not substitute its own judgment.
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 Matter of Herris v. United Parcel Serv., 2021 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4634 (3d Dept. July 22, 2021)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 130.06.
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.