Board Panel Opinion Provides a Succinct Explanation By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board The process for...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 89, No. 4 April 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. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Several months ago, an article in LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation...
By William Tappin, Esq., Law Offices of Tappin & Associates, Sierra Madre, CA There has been a lot of confusion with respect to whether ERISA preempts state laws regarding numerous programs, including...
By Thomas A. Robinson, co-author, Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law Editorial Note: All section references below are to Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, unless otherwise indicated...
A defendant's contention that as an employer it was immune from tort liability in a civil action filed against it by an employee did not speak to the Washington trial court's subject matter jurisdiction, held a state appellate court. Accordingly, its motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) was improperly granted by the trial court. Following a lengthy procedural discussion, the appellate court held that the trial court should either have treated the motion as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion [e.g., for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted] or denied the Rule 12(b)(1) on its merits.
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 Boudreaux v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 2019 Wash. App. LEXIS 2262 (Aug. 26, 2019)
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