Search for: "Applied Materials v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board"
Results 1 - 20
of 137
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Nov 2016, 6:50 pm
Although the Workers’ Compensation Board officer denied each of the workers’ claims, they appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal, which found that these were indeed occupational diseases. [read post]
4 Apr 2016, 9:30 am
A recent decision, Siennikov v. [read post]
10 Apr 2024, 3:02 am
Due to the fact that California requires an employer to obtain workers’ compensation coverage only from an admitted insurer or a state-approved self-insured plan , ERISA cannot apply to workers’ compensation coverage held by a California employer. [read post]
25 Jun 2023, 10:50 pm
The court in Ogilvie thus affirmed the continued relevance of vocational evidence with respect to the determination of permanent disability. ( Applied Materials v. [read post]
2 Jan 2024, 10:01 am
There was no evidence presented that the employees ever disposed of trash or other materials by setting fire to them [see Bassett v. [read post]
9 Apr 2024, 7:03 am
Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd. , 97 Cal. [read post]
16 Aug 2011, 3:09 am
Applying the special exceptions rule, the Court of Appeals sustained the Workers' Compensation Board's ruling that Neacosia was engaged in a “special errand” at the time he was injured and thus eligible for Workers' Compensation benefits [read post]
4 Feb 2016, 9:39 am
More Blog Posts: Massachusetts Appeals Court Finds for Worker Claiming Partial Incapacity Benefits, Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Lawyer Blog, published August 12, 2015 Massachusetts Reviewing Board Affirms Decision Awarding Injured Employee Workers’ Compensation Benefits, Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Lawyer Blog, published October 13, 2015 [read post]
17 Sep 2023, 9:48 am
Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board It is well-settled law that federally recognized Indian Tribes have sovereign immunity from state workers’ compensation liability. [read post]
26 Jun 2006, 4:06 pm
Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Armco Stainless), 580 Pa. 470, 861 A.2d 938 (2004). [read post]
19 Oct 2023, 8:59 am
Appeals Board Panel Decisions CAUTION: These WCAB panel decisions have not been designated a “significant panel decision” by the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. [read post]
20 Mar 2023, 3:00 am
The post Court of Appeal Applies “Changed Substratum” Doctrine to Invalidate Termination Clause in Employment Contract appeared first on Peter A. [read post]
20 Mar 2023, 3:00 am
The post Court of Appeal Applies “Changed Substratum” Doctrine to Invalidate Termination Clause in Employment Contract appeared first on Peter A. [read post]
14 May 2020, 4:00 am
The court said that the “record is barren of any evidence" that School District failed to hire him because he filed a workers’ compensation claim at some point in time before he retired. [read post]
14 May 2020, 4:00 am
The court said that the “record is barren of any evidence" that School District failed to hire him because he filed a workers’ compensation claim at some point in time before he retired. [read post]
6 Sep 2023, 5:24 am
Rassp Disclaimer: The material and any opinions contained in this treatise are solely those of the authors and are not the opinions of the Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Workers’ Compensation, or the WCAB, or any other entity or individual. [read post]
24 Aug 2023, 5:33 am
They are intended to apply to all situations in which an interpreter may be needed in workers’ compensation proceedings. [read post]
25 Jan 2015, 4:00 am
British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board) held that the Appeal Division of the Board, which predated WCAT, had the jurisdiction following Chandler to reconsider a case to correct its own jurisdictional error. [read post]
22 Nov 2020, 5:43 pm
This memo was written for an upcoming workers’ compensation trial. [read post]
18 Nov 2019, 8:01 am
As to defendant's cross-appeal, which argued that the Workers' Compensation Act barred an employee's bodily injury claim, the court ruled that the act did not bar plaintiff's claim but that if plaintiff were to prevail at trial defendant could receive a credit for the amount of workers’ compensation benefits it had paid to plaintiff. [read post]
