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...
Where an employee of a New Jersey company alleged that prior to his severe injury, the employer removed an important safety guard on a heavy machine, replacing it with a piece of tape so as to allow for continuous operation, and where the employee also alleged that his employer maintained an unwritten policy of avoiding the machine’s lock-out, tag-out (“LOTO”) safety feature, there was an issue of fact as to whether the employer’s actions amounted to intentional injury under New Jersey’s substantially certain exception to exclusivity. The court noted that was evidence from which a jury could conclude the employer had deliberately misled OSHA officials during its post-accident investigation. The employer’s summary judgment motion was, therefore, denied.
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 Sims v. VC999 Packaging Sys., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42074 (D. N.J., Mar. 11, 2020)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 103.04.
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.