Here's an interesting Board panel decision about a long-standing guardian ad litem who continued to represent the applicant after that party reached the age of majority. The WCAB said that the guardian...
Oakland – A new California Workers’ Compensation Institute (CWCI) study finds that average paid losses on California workers’ compensation lost-time claims fell immediately after legislative...
By Thomas A. Robinson, Co-Editor-in-Chief, Workers’ Compensation Emerging Issues Analysis (LexisNexis) As we move through the third decade of the twenty-first century, the United States remains...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Industrially injured workers in California are entitled to receive...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 88, No. 9 September 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...
Applying the 4-part test described in Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 34.01, et seq., a Tennessee appellate court affirmed a state trial court’s determination that an employer failed to show that one of its healthcare workers willfully violated the employer’s physical restraint policy in interacting with a resident at the employer’s therapeutic residential treatment facility. While the worker acknowledged that he knew about the employer’s policy that residents were to be free from restraint, the court held that the employer had failed to prove the fourth element of the Larsontest: that the employee’s action was more than a mere error in judgment, negligence, or even recklessness.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.
See Tennessee Clinical Sch., LLC v. Johns, 2019 Tenn. LEXIS 295 (Aug. 2, 1019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 34.01.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see