Newest Articles

May 27, 2025

When the Boss Wears Two Hats

Exclusivity Does Not Shield Corporate Officers/Property Owners From Liability as Landlords In Nelson v. Smith, 2025 N.C. App. LEXIS 306 (May 21, 2025), the North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed...

When the Boss Wears Two Hats When the Boss Wears Two Hats
May 22, 2025

Throwback Thursday: Nails v. Market Tire Co. (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1975)

Tools, Timing, and Termination In Nails v. Market Tire Co., 29 Md. App. 154, 347 A.2d 564 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1975), the Maryland Court of Special Appeals addressed a...

Throwback Thursday: Nails v. Market Tire Co. (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1975) Throwback Thursday: Nails v. Market Tire Co. (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1975)
May 20, 2025

Food Delivery Driver’s Tort Claim Against Pizzeria Barred by KY’s Up-the-Ladder Immunity Rule

In a fresh decision that further solidifies Kentucky’s robust up-the-ladder immunity doctrine, a federal district court has dismissed a negligence action filed by a food supplier’s delivery driver against a...

Food Delivery Driver’s Tort Claim Against Pizzeria Barred by KY’s Up-the-Ladder Immunity Rule Food Delivery Driver’s Tort Claim Against Pizzeria Barred by KY’s Up-the-Ladder Immunity Rule
May 19, 2025

MS Court of Appeals Applies Intoxication Presumption in Rooftop Fall Case

In Ladner v. Hinton Homes LLC, 2025 Miss. App. LEXIS 171 (Miss. Ct. App. May 6, 2025), the Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of workers’ compensation benefits to...

MS Court of Appeals Applies Intoxication Presumption in Rooftop Fall Case MS Court of Appeals Applies Intoxication Presumption in Rooftop Fall Case

All Articles

ARCHIVE
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
May 29, 2025

Throwback Thursday: Prows v. Industrial Commission of Utah (1980)

A Horseplay Case That Shaped Utah’s Workers’ Compensation Doctrine In Prows v. Industrial Commission of Utah, 610 P.2d 1362 (Utah 1980), the Supreme Court of Utah was presented with a...

Throwback Thursday: Prows v. Industrial Commission of Utah (1980) Throwback Thursday: Prows v. Industrial Commission of Utah (1980)
May 27, 2025

When the Boss Wears Two Hats

Exclusivity Does Not Shield Corporate Officers/Property Owners From Liability as Landlords In Nelson v. Smith, 2025 N.C. App. LEXIS 306 (May 21, 2025), the North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed...

When the Boss Wears Two Hats When the Boss Wears Two Hats
May 22, 2025

Throwback Thursday: Nails v. Market Tire Co. (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1975)

Tools, Timing, and Termination In Nails v. Market Tire Co., 29 Md. App. 154, 347 A.2d 564 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1975), the Maryland Court of Special Appeals addressed a...

Throwback Thursday: Nails v. Market Tire Co. (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1975) Throwback Thursday: Nails v. Market Tire Co. (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1975)
May 20, 2025

Food Delivery Driver’s Tort Claim Against Pizzeria Barred by KY’s Up-the-Ladder Immunity Rule

In a fresh decision that further solidifies Kentucky’s robust up-the-ladder immunity doctrine, a federal district court has dismissed a negligence action filed by a food supplier’s delivery driver against a...

Food Delivery Driver’s Tort Claim Against Pizzeria Barred by KY’s Up-the-Ladder Immunity Rule Food Delivery Driver’s Tort Claim Against Pizzeria Barred by KY’s Up-the-Ladder Immunity Rule
May 19, 2025

MS Court of Appeals Applies Intoxication Presumption in Rooftop Fall Case

In Ladner v. Hinton Homes LLC, 2025 Miss. App. LEXIS 171 (Miss. Ct. App. May 6, 2025), the Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of workers’ compensation benefits to...

MS Court of Appeals Applies Intoxication Presumption in Rooftop Fall Case MS Court of Appeals Applies Intoxication Presumption in Rooftop Fall Case
May 15, 2025

Throwback Thursday: Kowalski v. Shell Oil Co. (Cal. 1979)

Lent Employees and the Boundary of the Employment Relationship In the long and sometimes tangled history of American workers’ compensation law, few issues generate more uncertainty—and more litigation—than lent employment....

Throwback Thursday: Kowalski v. Shell Oil Co. (Cal. 1979) Throwback Thursday: Kowalski v. Shell Oil Co. (Cal. 1979)
May 13, 2025

Pennsylvania Pharmacy May Not be Joined as Party in Comp Case

In a decision released earlier this week, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania drew a firm jurisdictional line in a billing dispute that grew out of a utilization review determination. In...

Pennsylvania Pharmacy May Not be Joined as Party in Comp Case Pennsylvania Pharmacy May Not be Joined as Party in Comp Case
May 12, 2025

Final Means Final—Even When the Law Changes

Favorable Ruling by NY High Court Cannot Support Employer’s Reopening Request In Matter of Coyle v. W & W Steel Erectors LLC, 2025 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2889 (3d Dept....

Final Means Final—Even When the Law Changes Final Means Final—Even When the Law Changes
May 8, 2025

Throwback Thursday: Bridges v. Elite, Inc. (S.C. 1948)

Imported Quarrels and the Boundaries of Employment Risk In Bridges v. Elite, Inc., 212 S.C. 514, 48 S.E.2d 497 (S.C. 1948), the Supreme Court of South Carolina reversed a decision...

Throwback Thursday: Bridges v. Elite, Inc. (S.C. 1948) Throwback Thursday: Bridges v. Elite, Inc. (S.C. 1948)
May 7, 2025

NY Court Clarifies When Financial Hardship Justifies Total Disability

Construing an exception to New York’s cap on permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits [see N.Y. Workers’ Comp. Law, § 35(3)], which allows—in certain situations—reclassification of the claimant’s disability to permanent...

NY Court Clarifies When Financial Hardship Justifies Total Disability NY Court Clarifies When Financial Hardship Justifies Total Disability
May 6, 2025

California Court Reverses WCAB’s Award for Carpool Injuries Sustained During Commute

In a decision reemphasizing the boundaries of compensability for commuting injuries, the California Court of Appeal (Third Appellate District) has annulled a WCAB award awarding workers’ compensation benefits to a...

California Court Reverses WCAB’s Award for Carpool Injuries Sustained During Commute California Court Reverses WCAB’s Award for Carpool Injuries Sustained During Commute
May 1, 2025

Throwback Thursday: Martin v. Industrial Accident Commission (1956)

Refusal of Life-Saving Treatment Within Workers’ Compensation Context In Martin v. Industrial Accident Commission, 147 Cal. App. 2d 137, 304 P.2d 828 (Cal. Ct. App. 1956), the California Court of...

Throwback Thursday: Martin v. Industrial Accident Commission (1956) Throwback Thursday: Martin v. Industrial Accident Commission (1956)

New Comments

  • 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
  • Thomas A. Robinson: Good point, although the interesting thing about the case--at least to me--is that it discusses the important "injury by accident" issue. That issue, present in at least a plurality of state acts, is largely ignored by Commissions, Boards, and Courts these days. Here, also, the case was so fact-specific that even it had been issued as published, it would be factually distinguishable from many othe...