CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 89, No. 7 July 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...
Havanis v. Calif. Dept. of Transportation (Board Panel Decision) By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board I. Medical apportionment is not the...
By Robert G. Rassp, author of The Lawyer’s Guide to the AMA Guides and California Workers’ Compensation (LexisNexis) Disclaimer: The material and any opinions contained in this treatise are...
Oakland, CA – Private self-insured claim volume in the California workers' compensation system fell 9.5% in 2023, producing the biggest year-to-year decline in private self-insured claim frequency...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board No matter the source of your media consumption, it seems that the topic...
The Supreme Court of Wyoming held that a claimant’s late filing of his claim was excused under the circumstances of the case and both the employer and the Division of Workers’ Compensation were barred from utilizing the statute of limitations defense where their separate actions lulled the claimant into believing he did not have to file his claim within the required time frame. Noting that the doctrine of equitable estoppel applied in workers’ compensation cases, the Court stressed that its holding did not eliminate the application of the statute of limitations; it merely prevented the employer and the Division from using it as a defense.
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 Sweeralla v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Workforce Servs., Workers’ Compensation Div., 2019 WY 91 (Sept. 6, 2019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 126.09.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see