Ohio Court Rejects VSSR Claim for Arborist’ Fatal Accident

An Ohio appellate court has denied additional workers’ compensation benefits for the fatal workplace accident of a city arborist, ruling that construction safety regulations did not apply to tree removal…

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

Previous Next

Aug 19, 2025

Ohio Court Rejects VSSR Claim for Arborist’ Fatal Accident

Ohio Court Rejects VSSR Claim for Arborist’ Fatal Accident Ohio Court Rejects VSSR Claim for Arborist’ Fatal Accident

Case comment

Mar 1, 2017

$841,200 Fine Against Small Colorado Employer Was Unconstitutionally Excessive

While upholding the facial constitutionality of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8–43–409, which provides for the imposition of fines against certain employers that fail to maintain workers’ compensation insurance, a Colorado...

$841,200 Fine Against Small Colorado Employer Was Unconstitutionally Excessive $841,200 Fine Against Small Colorado Employer Was Unconstitutionally Excessive

Case comment

Aug 28, 2015

Kentucky High Court Says “Concurrent” Wages May Only Be Considered for AWW Computation if Concurrent Employment Existed on DOI

Where an injured employee had but one employer on the date of injury, the employee’s average weekly wage must be computed by considering only the wages from that employer; “concurrent”...

Kentucky High Court Says “Concurrent” Wages May Only Be Considered for AWW Computation if Concurrent Employment Existed on DOI Kentucky High Court Says “Concurrent” Wages May Only Be Considered for AWW Computation if Concurrent Employment Existed on DOI

Case comment

Jun 25, 2015

New Mexico Court Finds State’s “Farm and Ranch Laborer” Exclusion Unconstitutional

In Rodriguez v. Brand West Dairy, 2015 N.M. App. LEXIS 69 (June 22, 2015), a divided Court of Appeals of New Mexico recently held that the exclusion of coverage afforded...

New Mexico Court Finds State’s “Farm and Ranch Laborer” Exclusion Unconstitutional New Mexico Court Finds State’s “Farm and Ranch Laborer” Exclusion Unconstitutional

Case comment