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 New York claimant’s reduced earnings were due, not to his established back injury, but to economic conditions unrelated to the injury, the claimant was not entitled to a reduced earnings award, held a New York appellate court. The holding affirmed a divided panel of the state’s Workers’ Compensation Board that found the claimant’s reduced earnings was the result of a self-imposed limitation. He testified that he worked approximately five hours each week, yet neither his physician nor an independent medical examiner opined that no limitations had been placed on his ability to return to work.
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 Matter of Marcy v. City of Albany Fire Dept., 2019 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6055 (Aug. 1, 2019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 84.04.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see