Newest Articles

Mar 5, 2026

Delaware Supreme Court Reinstates IAB’s Denial of Sole Proprietor Coverage

In Motors v. Bayly (Red House Motors d/b/a Bayly’s Garage), 2026 Del. LEXIS 92 (Mar. 2, 2026), the Delaware Supreme Court reversed a Superior Court decision that the high court...

Delaware Supreme Court Reinstates IAB’s Denial of Sole Proprietor Coverage Delaware Supreme Court Reinstates IAB’s Denial of Sole Proprietor Coverage
Mar 3, 2026

Florida Court Invalidates Rules Expanding “Absolute Choice” Pharmacy Provision

In Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Department of Financial Services, 2026 Fla. App. LEXIS 1469 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb. 25, 2026), the First District Court of Appeal recently held that...

Florida Court Invalidates Rules Expanding “Absolute Choice” Pharmacy Provision Florida Court Invalidates Rules Expanding “Absolute Choice” Pharmacy Provision
Feb 26, 2026

Florida Court: IME Report Is Not a “Prescription” for Attendant Care

The Florida First District Court of Appeal has reversed an award of 24-hour attendant care benefits where the only “prescription” supporting the award appeared in an Independent Medical Examiner’s report...

Florida Court: IME Report Is Not a “Prescription” for Attendant Care Florida Court: IME Report Is Not a “Prescription” for Attendant Care
Feb 24, 2026

Issue Commentary: Where PA Worker’s Injury is Compensable, Does That Automatically Mean Co-Employee is Immune from Tort Liability?

PA Supreme Court Addresses Scope of Co-Employee Immunity In Brown v. Gaydos, 2026 Pa. LEXIS 267 (Pa. Feb. 18, 2026), a divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s reversal...

Issue Commentary: Where PA Worker’s Injury is Compensable, Does That Automatically Mean Co-Employee is Immune from Tort Liability? Issue Commentary: Where PA Worker’s Injury is Compensable, Does That Automatically Mean Co-Employee is Immune from Tort Liability?

All Articles

ARCHIVE
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
Mar 6, 2026

New York’s Hidden Cost Problem: WCRI Examines the Price of Delivering Benefits

Every dollar spent on workers’ compensation falls into one of two broad categories: benefits paid to injured workers—medical care and wage replacement—and the costs of delivering those benefits. The second...

New York’s Hidden Cost Problem: WCRI Examines the Price of Delivering Benefits New York’s Hidden Cost Problem: WCRI Examines the Price of Delivering Benefits
Mar 5, 2026

Delaware Supreme Court Reinstates IAB’s Denial of Sole Proprietor Coverage

In Motors v. Bayly (Red House Motors d/b/a Bayly’s Garage), 2026 Del. LEXIS 92 (Mar. 2, 2026), the Delaware Supreme Court reversed a Superior Court decision that the high court...

Delaware Supreme Court Reinstates IAB’s Denial of Sole Proprietor Coverage Delaware Supreme Court Reinstates IAB’s Denial of Sole Proprietor Coverage
Mar 3, 2026

Florida Court Invalidates Rules Expanding “Absolute Choice” Pharmacy Provision

In Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Department of Financial Services, 2026 Fla. App. LEXIS 1469 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb. 25, 2026), the First District Court of Appeal recently held that...

Florida Court Invalidates Rules Expanding “Absolute Choice” Pharmacy Provision Florida Court Invalidates Rules Expanding “Absolute Choice” Pharmacy Provision
Feb 26, 2026

Florida Court: IME Report Is Not a “Prescription” for Attendant Care

The Florida First District Court of Appeal has reversed an award of 24-hour attendant care benefits where the only “prescription” supporting the award appeared in an Independent Medical Examiner’s report...

Florida Court: IME Report Is Not a “Prescription” for Attendant Care Florida Court: IME Report Is Not a “Prescription” for Attendant Care
Feb 24, 2026

Issue Commentary: Where PA Worker’s Injury is Compensable, Does That Automatically Mean Co-Employee is Immune from Tort Liability?

PA Supreme Court Addresses Scope of Co-Employee Immunity In Brown v. Gaydos, 2026 Pa. LEXIS 267 (Pa. Feb. 18, 2026), a divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s reversal...

Issue Commentary: Where PA Worker’s Injury is Compensable, Does That Automatically Mean Co-Employee is Immune from Tort Liability? Issue Commentary: Where PA Worker’s Injury is Compensable, Does That Automatically Mean Co-Employee is Immune from Tort Liability?
Feb 19, 2026

Issue Commentary: Tick-Borne Alpha-Gal Syndrome Claim Reinstated

Arkansas Court Reverses Commission and Applies Increased-Risk Analysis A ranch hand who developed alpha-gal syndrome (AGS), a tick-borne allergy, after years of outdoor work in tick-infested conditions has had his...

Issue Commentary: Tick-Borne Alpha-Gal Syndrome Claim Reinstated Issue Commentary: Tick-Borne Alpha-Gal Syndrome Claim Reinstated
Feb 17, 2026

A NY Nurse Practitioner’s Opinion Carries the Day—But Should It?

Can a nurse practitioner’s opinion constitute the “competent medical evidence” required under New York law to establish causal relationship in a workers’ compensation case? The answer is “Yes,”at least according...

A NY Nurse Practitioner’s Opinion Carries the Day—But Should It? A NY Nurse Practitioner’s Opinion Carries the Day—But Should It?
Feb 13, 2026

WCRI’s New Data on Joint Replacement: A Shifting Landscape

In January 2026, the Workers Compensation Research Institute (WCRI) released a comprehensive study tracking joint replacement surgeries across 32 states over seven years, and the findings reveal both concerning trends...

WCRI’s New Data on Joint Replacement: A Shifting Landscape WCRI’s New Data on Joint Replacement: A Shifting Landscape
Feb 12, 2026

NY Court Affirms COVID-19 Death Benefits Award Based on Workplace Prevalence

Yesterday, the Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision establishing a claim for workers’ compensation death benefits, finding that a truck driver’s death from COVID-19 was causally...

NY Court Affirms COVID-19 Death Benefits Award Based on Workplace Prevalence NY Court Affirms COVID-19 Death Benefits Award Based on Workplace Prevalence
Feb 9, 2026

Oklahoma High Court: “One Physician Change” is a Floor, Not a Ceiling

In a 6–2 decision, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the state’s Administrative Workers’ Compensation Act does not limit a claimant to a single change of treating physician per claim—even...

Oklahoma High Court: “One Physician Change” is a Floor, Not a Ceiling Oklahoma High Court: “One Physician Change” is a Floor, Not a Ceiling
Feb 7, 2026

Ohio Court Affirms Denial of Benefits Based on Marijuana Impairment

Employee Tests at 48 Times the Statutory Limit In Del. Rosario v. Fresh Mark Inc., 2026-Ohio-274, 2026 Ohio App. LEXIS 282 (Ct. App. 5th Dist. Jan. 29, 2026), an Ohio...

Ohio Court Affirms Denial of Benefits Based on Marijuana Impairment Ohio Court Affirms Denial of Benefits Based on Marijuana Impairment
Jan 26, 2026

Issue Commentary: Oregon Supreme Court Strikes Down Governmental Immunity Statute Under State’s Remedy Clause

Oregon Holds Immunity for State Employees Violates Constitution When Applied to Workers’ Compensation Recipients In a 5-2 decision, the Oregon Supreme Court has handed down a significant opinion addressing the...

Issue Commentary: Oregon Supreme Court Strikes Down Governmental Immunity Statute Under State’s Remedy Clause Issue Commentary: Oregon Supreme Court Strikes Down Governmental Immunity Statute Under State’s Remedy Clause

New Comments

  • ramivou: They hid behind a flawed "reading" of this statute for a decade. I am glad the SC finally put an end to the misconception that it was a "first six months only" filing requirement, rather than an ongoing responsibility.
  • trob: Thanks for the query. New York's going and coming doctrine is similar to that in place in the majority of jurisdictions. That is to say that for employees with a fixed place of work and who are on a relatively consistent work schedule, the commute to and from the residence is outside the course and scope of the employment. Often overlooked is the fact that the employee must generally have a fixed ...
  • ramivou: Is coming and going covered in NY?
  • 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 ca...
  • ramivou: Why didn't they file it with the state Commission instead?
  • Thomas A. Robinson: I suspect that ACME could seek contractual indemnity, as you note, either from the staffing agency or its carrier. The goal of the Board or agency generally is to see to the proper award of benefits for compensable injuries. Allowing the "aggrieved" parties to sort it out later is completely consistent with the overall theory of workers' compensation. Many thanks for the comment. Best wishes.
  • Barry Stinson: I wonder if Acme's insurer could seek contractural indemnity from Variety's insurer outside of the WC system.
  • Michael C. Duff: The conceptual distinction is between joint causation and presumptive single causation.
  • Thomas A. Robinson: Sorry, I don't/can't provide legal advice. Best wishes, however.
  • Ken Smith: What can I do when my attorney blows my case with an incomplete RB89