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...
Where a worker admitted that he was responsible for his own equipment, provided his own labor and equipment, and was responsible for his own Workers' Compensation insurance, it was appropriate for the fact-finder to determine that he was an independent contractor and not an employee. Accordingly, as an independent contractor, he could not maintain a retaliatory discharge action under Ohio Rev. Code § 4123.90.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is the co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.
See DeLong v. Thompson, 2018-Ohio-770, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 808 (Mar. 1, 2018)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 104.07.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law