LexisNexis has selected some recently issued noteworthy IMR decisions that illustrate the criteria that must be met to obtain authorization for a variety of different medical treatment modalities. LexisNexis...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Appeals Board panel decisions that rescind a WCJ’s decision and...
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...
In computing the social security offset required under Wash. Rev. Code § 51.32.220, the state’s Department of Labor and Industries need not adjust the claimant’s wages for inflation, held a state appellate court. The statute requires that a claimant’s workers’ compensation disability benefits be reduced by either the amount the person receives in social security benefits or by an amount calculated under 42 U.S.C. § 424a(a), whichever is less. The amount of the offset under 42 U.S.C. § 424a(a) is ordinarily the amount by which a claimant’s combined monthly disability and social security benefits exceed 80 percent of the claimant’s “average current earnings,” which, in the case of the claimant, was equal to one-twelfth of the claimant’s highest annual earnings during the year of disability: 1983. Here the DLI calculated the offset under 42 U.S.C. § 424a(a) based on the claimant’s 1983 earnings. He argued that DLI should have adjusted his 1983 earnings to present value when calculating his offset. Indeed, a present value adjustment would have lowered the amount of the offset considerably. The appellate court rejected the argument, holding that § 51.32.220 and 42 U.S.C. § 424a(a)(8) unambiguously required that the offset be calculated using claimant’s unadjusted 1983 income.
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 Birgen v. Department of Labor and Indus., 2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 745 (Apr. 7, 2015) [2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 745 (Apr. 7, 2015)]
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 157.03 [157.03]
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