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...
Unless an employee’s drug use was the proximate cause of his work-connected injury, he was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits in spite of his violation of a workplace rule by having marijuana metabolites in his system at the workplace [see Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4123.54(A)(2)], held an Ohio appellate court. While the employer proffered evidence that the employee told other employees that he could not pass the urine drug screen on the day of the accident because of marijuana use, the worker’s testimony also indicated that he had not smoked marijuana on the day of the accident, and had last smoked marijuana several weeks before the accident. The evidence did not demonstrate that the worker was under the influence of marijuana on the date of the accident and that his marijuana use was the proximate cause of the accident. The trial court did not, therefore, abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence on the basis that its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value.
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 Trent v. Stark Metal Sales, Inc., 2015-Ohio-1115, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 1070 (Mar. 23, 2015) [2015-Ohio-1115, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 1070 (Mar. 23, 2015)]
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 36.03 [36.03]
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