NWCDN Members regularly post articles and summary judgements in workers’ compensations law in your state.
Select a state from the dropdown menu below to scroll through the state specific archives for updates and opinions on various workers’ compensation laws in your state.
Contact information for NWCDN members is also located on the state specific links in the event you have additional questions or your company is seeking a workers’ compensation lawyer in your state.
In the past year, the Office of Workers’ Compensation, and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, has heard and issued opinions on both brand new and old doctrines of law. Ranging from medical marijuana reimbursement, to the “coming and going rule,” DC workers' compensation has and will continue to see shifts in trends under the District of Columbia’s Workers’ Compensation Act.
On January 3, 2024, the Compensation Review Board (“CRB”) issued a decision in Freeland v. Dominion Mechanical, Inc. holding that a claim for reimbursement for out of pocket expenses associated with medical marijuana is not permissible under the District of Columbia’s Workers’ Compensation Act. The decision notes that allowing reimbursement of expenses related to medical marijuana is contrary to federal law. This decision was not appealed.
On June 6, 2024, the D.C. Court of Appeals (“the Court”) issued a decision in Rieger v. D.C. Department of Employment Services, reversing the decision of the CRB. The Claimant, a midwife, worked at multiple locations on the medical campus, including the main hospital building, as well as the medical arts building. While walking from one location to the other, the Claimant took her usual route and left the university property and turned onto a public street, when she collided with a jogger running on the sidewalk. The claim was initially found to be compensable before the CBR reversed the decision. The Court applied the positional risk test and opined that the injury was in the course of the Claimant’s employment as her work obligations placed her at the location in which she was injured. The Court held that the claim was not barred by the coming and going rule and stated that once an employee arrives on the employer’s premises, the going and coming rule does not bar the claim even if the employee had not reached a specific worksite on the premise. Additionally, the Court noted that the Claimant’s activity of walking on the public sidewalk between premises was foreseeable and a part of her regular duties.