CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES
Vol. 88, No. 5 May 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
In 2022 there were 7,490 wildfires in California. They burned 362,455 acres...
By Christopher Mahon
Should temporary workers be treated separately under workers’ compensation law due to additional employment and income risks they may incur after workplace injuries? A new study...
Here's a noteworthy panel decision where a family member conveyed essential information to the AME on behalf of the injured employee. The Lexis headnote is below.
CA - NOTEWORTHY PANEL DECISIONS...
Oakland, CA – Part II of a California Workers’ Compensation Institute (CWCI) research series on low- volume/high-cost drugs used to treat California injured workers identifies three Dermatological drugs...
A New York appellate court held it was error to apportion an injured worker’s permanent disability based on medical testimony that 10 percent of the impairment was due to a 2009 work-related injury and that the rest was due to a 1981 work-related injury where the worker returned to work after the 1981 injury and performed various duties for some 28 years until the subsequent work-related accident. It made no difference that during the time frame he was symptomatic; to support apportionment, the employer and its carrier were required to show that the earlier injury actually produced a discernable disability. That could not be shown where the worker continued to be fully employed. In addition, evidence indicated the worker had not received medical treatment for the earlier injury during the ensuing period of time.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is a leading commentator and expert on the law of workers’ compensation.
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance. Bracketed citations link to lexis.com.
See Levitsky v. Garden Time, Inc., 2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2570 (3rd Dep't, Mar. 26, 2015)] [2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2570 (3rd Dep't, Mar. 26, 2015)]
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 90.04 [90.04]
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see http://www.workcompwriter.com/new-york-apportionment-inappropriate-where-1981-injury-remained-symptomatic-but-was-not-disabling/
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site