Idaho Clarifies Causation for Recurrent Injuries

The Idaho Supreme Court has reversed the Idaho Industrial Commission’s denial of benefits in a case involving a recurrent tendon tear, holding that the Commission applied an incorrect causation standard…

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

Previous Next

Jan 7, 2026

Idaho Clarifies Causation for Recurrent Injuries

Idaho Clarifies Causation for Recurrent Injuries Idaho Clarifies Causation for Recurrent Injuries

Case comment

Feb 2, 2012

Ohio: Cautious Medical Testimony Dooms Death Benefits Claim Related to “Poster Child for Heart Disease”

An Ohio appellate court recently found that medical evidence presented in a death claim case was too speculative to support the required causal connection between a worker’s fatal heart attack...

Ohio: Cautious Medical Testimony Dooms Death Benefits Claim Related to “Poster Child for Heart Disease” Ohio: Cautious Medical Testimony Dooms Death Benefits Claim Related to “Poster Child for Heart Disease”

Case comment

Sep 16, 2019

NY Court: “Attachment to Labor Market” Amendment Not Always Applied Retroactively

The 2017 amendment to N.Y. Workers’ Comp. Law § 15(3)(w), which relieves some permanently partially disabled claimants of the obligation to show labor market attachment, does not apply retroactively in all...

NY Court: “Attachment to Labor Market” Amendment Not Always Applied Retroactively NY Court: “Attachment to Labor Market” Amendment Not Always Applied Retroactively

Case comment

Jul 28, 2014

Alaska: Same-Sex Partner of Deceased Worker Entitled to Death Benefits In Spite of State’s “Marriage Amendment”

On Friday, the Supreme Court of Alaska, in Harris v. Millennium Hotel, 2014 Alas. LEXIS 149 (July 25, 2014), held that the state’s workers’ compensation death benefits statute, Alaska Stat....

Alaska: Same-Sex Partner of Deceased Worker Entitled to Death Benefits In Spite of State’s “Marriage Amendment” Alaska: Same-Sex Partner of Deceased Worker Entitled to Death Benefits In Spite of State’s “Marriage Amendment”

Case comment