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...
Answering seven certified questions from a magistrate judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota, that state’s Supreme Court concluded that to the extent that a worker could show that her purported employer intentionally and not inadvertently misrepresented the amount of payroll upon which a workers’ compensation premium was owed to Workforce Safety and Insurance (“WSI”), or intentionally and not inadvertently failed to secure coverage for employees, she could both file a claim with the WSI for workers compensation benefits and a civil action against the “employer” for damages under the dual remedies language of N.D. Cent. Code § 65–09–02. That an employer was allowed/required “to correct” its payroll statements at the end of the relevant coverage period to reflect wages paid to employees that it had erroneously characterized as independent contractors did not limit the right of the worker to seek dual remedies. The Court stressed that while the North Dakota Workforce Safety and Insurance Act generally provides the exclusive remedy for an employee who suffers a compensable injury, the employer must comply with the Act’s requirements for the exclusive remedy provisions to apply.
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 Vail v. S/L Servs., Inc., 2017 ND 202, 2017 N.D. LEXIS 204 (Aug. 11, 2017)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 102.02.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law