By Hon. 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 article...
Oakland, CA – The decline in opioid use in California workers’ compensation has outpaced the decline among the state’s overall population according to a new California Workers’...
By Julius Young, Richard Jacobsmeyer, Barry Bloom, Editors-in-Chief for Herlick, California Workers’ Compensation Handbook [Note: This article is excerpted from the upcoming 2025 edition of Herlick...
By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Practitioners beware! Death benefit trials often raise intricate and unique evidentiary conundrums. Obtaining...
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...
A former law firm security officer may not maintain a civil action against his former employer for alleged Title VII discrimination, wrongful termination, and “pain and suffering” injuries allegedly suffered by the plaintiff following an altercation between the security officer and his supervisor, held a federal district court. Since the plaintiff's injuries, if any, arose out of a workplace incident, the tort claim was barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the District of Columbia Workers' Compensation Act. The court acknowledged that it must hold the pleadings of a pro se party, such as the plaintiff, to a lower standard, but held nevertheless that the cause of action must be dismissed.
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 Harley v. Covington & Burling, LLC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85820 (D. D.C., May 15, 2020)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 100.01.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see
Sign up for the free LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation enewsletter at www.lexisnexis.com/wcnews.