MICHAEL SULLIVAN & ASSOCIATES BLOG

Michael Sullivan & Associates LLP (MS&A) announced today that Richard “Jake” Jacobsmeyer has joined the firm in its Workers’ Compensation Practice. Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Jacobsmeyer was a partner at Shaw, Jacobsmeyer, Crain & Claffey.

“We’re delighted to welcome Jake to the firm,” said Megan Sullivan, Senior Partner at MS&A. “Jake's presence at MS&A significantly enhances the level of service we provide to our clients, as he is a brilliant attorney and educator. We are lucky to add his extensive experience to bolster the capabilities to our firm.”

What an amazing time at PIHRA's 2024 CAHR Conference! From co-hosting a vibrant happy hour with Lockton at Rise Rooftop Lounge, to our Managing Partner Eric De Wames leading an insightful session on the future of AI in HR, and our buzzing booth at the event, we loved every moment. Thanks to everyone who joined us!

If you'd like to join MS&A at one of our upcoming events, just follow us on one of our social media channels--we're on LinkedIn, Instagram, Facebook, and X. We'd love to have you attend one of our events!

Labor Code § 3600(a)(7) establishes the initial physical aggressor defense. It explains that a claim is not compensable when the injury arises "out of an altercation in which the injured employee is the initial physical aggressor." That defense embodies the legislative intent to exclude from compensation those who introduce violence into the workplace.

The types of behavior that are barred under the statute were defined in the seminal case of Mathews v. WCAB (1972) 6 Cal. 3d 719, in which the Supreme Court explained that former LC 3600(g), now LC 3600(a)(7), applies when two conditions are present. One, the injury must "arise out of an altercation." Two, the injured employee must be the "initial physical aggressor" in the altercation.

Dive into the April Rhino Round-up! April was buzzing with activity as MS&A hit the ground running at CASBO, CalSHRM, and EWC conferences, not to mention the memorable moments at PIWC's crab feed!

If you'd like to join MS&A at one of our upcoming events, just follow us on one of our social media channels--we're on LinkedIn, Instagram, Facebook, and X. We'd love to have you attend one of our events!

What an unforgettable time we had at the CalSHRM Conference in Sacramento last week! Whether at Eric and Tara's insightful Return to Work presentation, our lively happy hour at the Sheraton Grand, or the MS&A booth, it was wonderful to connect with all of you!

If you'd like to join MS&A at one of our upcoming events, just follow us on one of our social media channels--we're on LinkedIn, Instagram, Facebook, and X. We'd love to have you attend one of our events!

Effective April 1, 2024, the minimum wage for many California fast-food workers increased from $16 to $20 an hour. The changes were brought by Assembly Bill (AB) 1228, which was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sept. 28, 2023. AB 1228 added Labor Code § 1474, § 1475 and § 1476. ^[1]

The change, of course, means that the average weekly wage (AWW) of employees — and, accordingly, the rates for indemnity payments — will increase. But the more poignant concern: Is there an increase for existing cases in which temporary disability is being paid out? After all, if a raise is expected and scheduled at the time of injury, that must be taken into account when establishing the AWW. Do existing claims need to be looked at now for a possible adjustment? The answer might well be yes.

Nearly one-quarter century ago, in Tenet/Centinela Hospital Medical Center v. WCAB (Rushing) (2000) 80 Cal. App. 4th 1041, the Court of Appeal held that when a treating physician has declared the employee's injury to be permanent and stationary, has released the employee to return to work and has prescribed no further doctor-involved treatment or visits, the employee did not have a right to change treating doctors just because future medical care was warranted. Instead, the court explained that the employee was required to comply with the provisions of California Code of Regulations, Title 8, § 9785(b), and Labor Code § 4061 and § 4062, to change primary treating doctors (PTPs).

When a party disputes an order, decision or award issued by a workers' compensation judge (WCJ), there are two options for appeal. Pursuant to Labor Code § 5900, a party may file a petition for reconsideration of a "final order, decision, or award made and filed by the appeals board or a workers' compensation judge." In contrast, LC 5310 states, "The appeals board may ... remove to itself, or transfer to a workers' compensation administrative law judge the proceedings on any claim." A petition for removal is the appropriate remedy for interim, nonfinal orders.