Home > ARTICLES > Utah District Court Lacks Jurisdiction to Hear Employer’s Suit to Recover Injured Employee’s Fair Debt Collection Act Settlement Proceeds

Tags:

fair credit collection practices jurisdiction subject matter subrogation third-party action

Categories:

Case comment

Oct 1, 2023

Utah District Court Lacks Jurisdiction to Hear Employer’s Suit to Recover Injured Employee’s Fair Debt Collection Act Settlement Proceeds

glasses on the desk

Where an injured employee settled a civil action that she had filed against various debt collectors, contending that they had violated Utah’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when they...

Sorry! You must be a member to access this content!

Previous Next

Related Articles

Oct 1, 2023

Utah District Court Lacks Jurisdiction to Hear Employer’s Suit to Recover Injured Employee’s Fair Debt Collection Act Settlement Proceeds

Utah District Court Lacks Jurisdiction to Hear Employer’s Suit to Recover Injured Employee’s Fair Debt Collection Act Settlement Proceeds Utah District Court Lacks Jurisdiction to Hear Employer’s Suit to Recover Injured Employee’s Fair Debt Collection Act Settlement Proceeds

Case comment

May 28, 2023

Alabama Temp Worker May Not Sue Special Employer in Tort

Alabama Temp Worker May Not Sue Special Employer in Tort Alabama Temp Worker May Not Sue Special Employer in Tort

Case comment

Nov 17, 2016

South Carolina High Court Adopts Larson’s “Divided Premises” Rule

Adopting Dr. Arthur Larson’s “divided premises” rule [Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law § 13.01[4][b]], in which an employee remains within the course and scope of the employment while traveling along or...

South Carolina High Court Adopts Larson’s “Divided Premises” Rule South Carolina High Court Adopts Larson’s “Divided Premises” Rule

Case comment

Feb 22, 2021

Arkansas Muscle Strain Claim May Be Compensable Where Physician Did Not Observe Spasms

Construing Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(D) (Supp. 2019), which indicates that a compensable injury must be established by medical evidence supported by objective findings [emphasis mine], an Arkansas appellate court...

Arkansas Muscle Strain Claim May Be Compensable Where Physician Did Not Observe Spasms Arkansas Muscle Strain Claim May Be Compensable Where Physician Did Not Observe Spasms

Case comment

Comments

Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

2 Oct, 2023, 16:36
ramivou

Why didn’t they file it with the state Commission instead?
- 2 Oct, 2023, 17:26
  trob
  
  Excellent question. My thought is that the employer was following what it assumed was the typical practice of seeking to protect its “subrogation” interest in state court; in virtually all jurisdictions, the state trial courts are where subrogation issues are litigated. What differed here, of course, was that it wasn’t a standard subrogation case, i.e., the employee’s work-related injury wasn’t caused by a third-party. Here the employee had a completely separate cause of action against the collection agencies. I suspect that the employer also realized that if offered a “subrogation” argument before the commission, it would be unsuccessful. In other words, although the Supreme Court never addresses the issue–it wasn’t before the court–but had the employer sought reimbursement through the commission, I don’t see how it could have prevailed.
  
  Your thoughts?