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 welder, who was living in North Carolina, received a communication from her union hall, which was located in Oklahoma, that she should report for an assignment in Huntsville, Texas and where, upon arrival in Texas, the welder was required to undergo a drug test and complete various forms—including an authorization for a background check—before she could begin working, under North Carolina’s “last act” test, her employment contract was made in Texas, and not in North Carolina. The North Carolina Industrial Commission did not have jurisdiction to hear her injury claim since her injury occurred outside North Carolina. The court noted that had she not undergone the drug test, she would not have been hired. Moreover, she began work within to hours of taking the test. Submission to the drug test was more than an administrative formality. There was the risk that she would not pass the test. The binding contract did not take place in North Carolina.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is the co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.
See Holmes v. Associated Pipe Line Contrs., 2017 N.C. App. LEXIS 52 (Feb. 7, 2017)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 143.03.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law