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...
In an unpublished opinion, a New Jersey appellate court recently affirmed in pertinent part a trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a physician-defendant in a civil action for personal injuries filed against the physician by a woman who cleaned the building that the defendant owned and within which the defendant practiced medicine with his father. The defendant contended plaintiff’s civil action was barred by exclusivity. The plaintiff countered that the defendant’s father employed her—and not the defendant—and that he was susceptible to suit. Reviewing the findings of the trial court, the appellate court noted that the two physicians practiced together, but had no partnership agreement or any other formal document describing their work relationship, that the father had originally owned the building and had conveyed it to the son for nominal consideration, that the plaintiff’s W-2 forms listed only the father’s name as employer, but that plaintiff had always been paid from a checking account that listed both doctor’s names and had both their signatures. The appellate court, quoting Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, held that given the circumstances, the plaintiff should be considered the joint employee of the two physicians. She could not, therefore, sue one of them in tort for her injuries.
Reported by Thomas A. Robinson, J.D.
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance. Bracketed citations link to lexis.com.
See Chalmers v. Swartz, 2013 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2428 (Oct. 8, 2013) [2013 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2428 (Oct. 8, 2013)]
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 68.01 [68.01]
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
_________________________
Special Presale Price $79*; Book ships late October 2013.
Keep track of how the workers' comp landscape is changing with this 400+ page compendium. Here's what you get:
View the brochure & table of contents.
View sample pages.
Order online or contact Christine Hyatt at ph. 937-247-8166, or Email: Christine.E.Hyatt@lexisnexis.com.
PROMO CODE: WCEIA
*Price does not include sales tax, shipping or handling. Price subject to change without notice. Discount cannot be combined with other offers. Expires 12/31/2013.