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...
Where a New York claimant failed to complete the information “box” for question 13 of the RB-89 form (Application for Review), within which claimant would otherwise have provided details as to “[h]earing dates, [t]ranscripts, [d]ocuments, [e]xhibits, and other evidence that she would rely upon in her administrative appeal, the Application was defective and the Workers' Compensation Board was within its discretion to deny claimant's application on that basis, held a state appellate court. The court noted that claimant had been represented by counsel. It stressed that the RB-89 was no cover sheet; it was an important part of the application for review.
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 Jones v Human Resources Admin., 2019 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5343 (July 3, 2019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 124.08.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see