Oakland, CA – California’s State Average Weekly Wage (SAWW) rose nearly 3.8 percent in the year ending March 31, 2024, which will result in an increase in California workers’ compensation...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 89, No. 10 October 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...
By Hon. Robert G. Rassp, Presiding Judge, WCAB Los Angeles, California Division of Workers’ Compensation Disclaimer: The material and any opinions contained in this article are solely those of...
Oakland, CA – Migraine Drugs represented less than 1% of all prescriptions dispensed to California injured workers in 2023 but they consumed 4.7% of workers’ compensation drug payments, a nearly...
COMPLEX EMPLOYMENT ISSUES FOR CALIFORNIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION A new softbound supplement to Rassp & Herlick, California Workers’ Compensation Law 284 pages PIN #0006801214509 For...
Where lay witnesses testified that the decedent had the “normal” use of his mental and physical facilities on the day of an employee’s fatal accident, a jury could reasonably find that the deceased employee’s beneficiary had sufficiently rebutted the presumption of intoxication found in Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 401.013(c). The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence in spite of the fact that a blood test and urinalysis showed the presence of marijuana in the decedent’s system. The court stressed intoxication was defined in the Texas Labor Code as not having the normal use of mental or physical facilities resulting from the voluntary introduction into the body of a controlled substance. The court found that expert medical evidence was not always required to rebut the presumption.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis%20Workers’%20Compensation%20eNewsletter">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 Unique Staff Leasing, Ltd. v. Cates, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 8174 (July 29, 2016)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 36.03.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law