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...
In an opinion not designated for publication, a Virginia appellate court affirmed a decision by the state’s Workers’ Compensation Commission that held a retired firefighter-medic was not entitled to utilize the state’s “firefighter’s presumption” in connection with his claim for medical benefits related to his heart condition. Agreeing with the claimant that he was not required to show any actual loss of earnings resulting from his claimed heart condition, the court nevertheless held that he was required to show entitlement to “some form of economic indemnity” in order to receive the benefit of the presumption. Quoting extensively from Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the court said that the disability concept is a blend of two ingredients: (1) disability in the medical or physical sense, as evidenced by obvious loss of members or by medical testimony that the claimant simply cannot make the necessary muscular movements and exertions; and (2) de facto inability to earn wages, as evidenced by proof that claimant has not in fact earned anything. While the firefighter need not actually show a loss of earnings, something more than that supplied was required to gain the benefit of the presumption.
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 Lipscomb v. City of Lynchburg, 2014 Va. App. LEXIS 210 (May 27, 2014) [2014 Va. App. LEXIS 210 (May 27, 2014)]
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 52.07 [52.07]
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see http://www.workcompwriter.com/virginia-court-firefighters-presumption-requires-showing-of-entitlement-to-some-form-of-economic-indemnity/
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