Articles Posted in Workers’ Compensation

In a recent case, the California Court of Appeal addressed the process of attempting to change, or rebut, an assigned statutory rating of disability.  The California Permanent Disability Rating Schedule assesses an individual’s degree of permanent disability. There are four components of the Schedule:  (1) the type of injury; (2) the applicant’s occupation; (3) the applicant’s age; and (4) the applicant’s decreased future earning capacity.  Consistency and objectivity are promoted through the Schedule because it helps to ascertain indemnity benefits.

In this case, an injured worker claimed that she would have a harder time rehabilitating and therefore face a greater loss of future earnings than the Schedule set forth. The court reviewed the appropriate methods for rebutting the Schedule’s rating and assessed her allegations.

The scheduled rating can be rebutted in three ways. First, a party can show a factual error in the application of the formula. Second, the injured employee’s rehabilitation may have been impaired, and their decreased future earning capacity may be greater than shown in the rating. Third, a rating can be rebutted when a claimant shows that the nature or severity of their injury is not captured in the sampling of disabled workers used to determine the adjustment factor.

Continue reading ›

In a recent case, the California Court of Appeal reviewed a decision of the Worker’s Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) that denied benefits under the “going and coming rule.” This is a rule that mandates that workers’ compensation benefits not be awarded to employees injured during a local commute to a fixed place of business, at fixed hours. The rationale is that the injury has not taken place during the ordinary course of employment.

Craig Schultz suffered injuries in a traffic accident while driving his personal vehicle on the Edwards Air Force Base, where he worked for Joint Testing Tactics and Training (Joint Testing). He applied for workers’ compensation benefits.

His trial brief included Mr. Schultz’s argument that the use of his personal vehicle was an express or implied condition of employment and an accommodation to Joint Testing, even if it was not a condition of employment. For these reasons, Mr. Schultz argued the going and coming rule did not preclude workers’ compensation liability. In his post-trial brief, Mr. Schultz also contended that the premises line rule applied. Since he was on Joint Testing’s premises when he was injured, as a matter of law the employment relationship had begun.

Continue reading ›

In reviewing a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, the California Court of Appeal held that the defendant’s due process right to cross-examination was violated when the plaintiff employee refused to respond to cross-examination. In this case, the appeals court focused on the importance of cross-examination, especially as a tool to help determine the credibility of a witness.

In 1996, Mr. Ritzhoff injured his right ankle, right hand, back, and psyche while working as a banquet server for the defendant.   The Workers’ Compensation Judge determined that Mr. Ritzhoff was permanently and totally disabled, relying on the opinion of his treating psychiatrist.

The defendant paid temporary disability payments, and a hearing took place to determine whether Mr. Ritzhoff was temporarily psychiatrically disabled. At this hearing, on cross-examination, Mr. Ritzhoff admitted working since his injury.

Continue reading ›

The California Court of Appeals recently issued a ruling in what would ordinarily be considered a workers’ compensation case but for a personal injury exception regarding power presses.

In the case, Gonzalez v. Seal Methods, Inc., 223 Cal. App. 4th 405 (2014), the plaintiff was working for the defendant company in the operation of a power press, when her hand became severely injured by the machine that she was operating. She sued the company under a Labor Code section that allows for such suits in certain cases.

Ordinarily, under California law, when individuals are injured during the course of employment, workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy available. The employer assumes liability, and the employee does not have to prove fault. However, there are limited statutory exceptions to the workers’ compensation scheme, which are intended to compensate individuals in addition to workers’ compensation.

Continue reading ›

In a recent products liability/workplace injury case, Elsheref v. Applied Materials, Inc., 223 Cal. App. 4th 451 (2014), the California Court of Appeals had before it an appeal from a lower court’s decision regarding the liability of an employer for the injuries reportedly suffered as birth defects in an employee’s son.

According to the opinion, the employee worked in an environment that exposed him to various chemicals that were reportedly associated with posing risks of harm to the reproductive system. It is unclear from the opinion itself whether the employer knew that the employee was being exposed to the relevant chemicals, since the company had employed an industrial hygienist to ensure that the chemicals were not leaking from the apparatus being used by employees.

Continue reading ›

In a recent workers’ compensation case, Meyers v. Board of Administration, etc., 224 Cal.App.4th 250 (2014), the California Court of Appeals (6th Dist.) analyzed the requirements necessary for a work-related injury retirement, and what an accommodation in that context actually means.

In the case, the employee, Mr. Meyers, began work for the City of San Jose as an associate construction inspector, and two years into his job he fell, hitting his back and elbow on the pavement. Meyers immediately sought treatment for neck and back pain, which ultimately required surgery during which three of his vertebrae were fused together.

Meyers eventually returned to work but continued to experience back pain and muscle spasms, for which he continued undergoing treatment and took pain medication.

Continue reading ›