Workers’ Compensation
Ca. Workers' Comp. Quarterly 2016, Vol. 29, No. 3
Content
- 2016 State Bar Workers' Compensation Section Steve Jimenez Memorial Special Recognition Awards
- Helping Children of Injured Workers: Kids' Chance of California
- Labor Code Section 132a Common Problems and Pitfalls
- Lien Lingo: An Introduction to Litigating Workers' Compensation Liens in California
- Queen's Castle v. Drone: Expectation of Privacy Rights and Avoidance of Evidentiary Concerns Regarding Chain of Custody in Workers' Compensation Sub Rosa Surveillance
- Serious and Willful Claims: Updated at a Glance
- The Six Biggest Mediation Misconceptions
- Workers' Compensation Section 2015-2016 Executive Committee Roster
- When None May Speak ̶ a Look at Circumstantial Evidence in Death Cases
When None May Speak – a Look at Circumstantial Evidence in Death Cases
THE HON. SHILOH A. RASSMUSSON
Van Nuys, California
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and in no way reflect the opinions of the California Department of Industrial Relations, the Division of Workers’ Compensation, or the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board.
If there is such a thing as a "typical" workers’ compensation case, it is one where the applicant is an industrially injured worker seeking benefits for the worker’s own industrial injuries. Such applicants are available to testify, attend medical evaluations, and answer the questions of attorneys, doctors, and judges. The applicant can provide details of the injury, what they were doing at the time they were hurt, to whom the injury was reported, which body parts were injured, and so on. Direct evidence may be obtained in these cases not only from medical examinations but also through sworn testimony. However, in death cases, direct testimonial evidence from the decedent is obviously no longer possible. And in these cases, circumstantial evidence – or the lack thereof – can be determinative.