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...
Oakland, CA -- The California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) has issued the 2025 assessments that workers’ compensation insurers are required to collect from policyholders to cover the...
Oakland – Alex Swedlow has announced his plans to retire as President of the Oakland-based California Workers' Compensation Institute (CWCI) effective August 2025. Mr. Swedlow’s retirement...
Oakland - A new California Workers’ Compensation Institute (CWCI) analysis that examines how medical inflation impacts allowable fees under the California workers’ compensation Official Medical...
By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board It’s a problem. Petitions for Reconsideration (Recon) are losing their way and delaying their arrival...
In a divided decision, the Supreme Court of Washington held that a staffing agency might, at least in some circumstances, be liable for the borrowing employer’s safety violations under the state’s Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA) if the agency had maintained sufficient control over the worker and his or her working environment such that the agency might reasonably have abated the safety hazards. The Court acknowledged that employment issues under the state’s workers’ compensation laws and WISHA were not identical. The Court said the appropriate inquiry should be whether the staffing agency had retained sufficient control over the work environment. In these two cases joined to consider the important issue of agency liability, the Court held that the Board’s determination that one of the agencies had not maintained control over the work environment was supported by competent evidence. In the other case, however, the Court noted that the agency was aware of potential hazards and should have taken some sort of action to protect its workers. Those facts supported the conclusion that the second agency should be liable for the WISHA violations.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the co-Editor-in-Chief and 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 Department of Labor & Indus. v. Tradesmen Int’l, LLC, 2021 Wash. LEXIS 586 (Oct. 28, 2 021)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 67.06.
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.