Newest Articles

Oct 22, 2026

NY PTSD Claim Fails Under Pre-Amendment Stress Standard

Subway Cleaner Who Witnessed a Platform Injury A New York appellate court recently affirmed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision disallowing a subway-station cleaner’s PTSD claim after he witnessed a woman’s...

NY PTSD Claim Fails Under Pre-Amendment Stress Standard NY PTSD Claim Fails Under Pre-Amendment Stress Standard
Oct 20, 2026

Who Made the Firing Decision? Alabama Court Upholds Retaliation Finding

AL Supreme Court: HR’s Role Was a Jury Question The Alabama Supreme Court, by a 5–4 vote, affirmed liability for retaliatory discharge where the evidence permitted a jury to find...

Who Made the Firing Decision? Alabama Court Upholds Retaliation Finding Who Made the Firing Decision? Alabama Court Upholds Retaliation Finding
Oct 19, 2026

Uncertain Cardiac Sequence Does Not Defeat NY Bus Driver’s Claim

NY Bus Driver’s Crash and Arrhythmia A New York appellate court has affirmed a Workers’ Compensation Board finding that a school bus driver’s injuries and death arose out of his...

Uncertain Cardiac Sequence Does Not Defeat NY Bus Driver’s Claim Uncertain Cardiac Sequence Does Not Defeat NY Bus Driver’s Claim
Oct 15, 2026

Safety Rule Defense Fails Where Employer Tolerated Violation

IL Applies Saunders Acquiescence Exception to Footwear Rule An Illinois appellate court, in a decision not designated for full publication, has affirmed an award of benefits to an ice cream...

Safety Rule Defense Fails Where Employer Tolerated Violation Safety Rule Defense Fails Where Employer Tolerated Violation

All Articles

ARCHIVE
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
Dec 29, 2025

TN Supreme Court: Product Vendor Not a “Subcontractor” Under Workers’ Comp Law

The Tennessee Supreme Court recently held that a retail store chain was not a statutory employer of a product vendor’s injured employee, reversing the state’s Court of Appeals and adopting...

TN Supreme Court: Product Vendor Not a “Subcontractor” Under Workers’ Comp Law TN Supreme Court: Product Vendor Not a “Subcontractor” Under Workers’ Comp Law
Dec 22, 2025

NY Attorney’s Ex Parte Communication with MD Sinks Claim

The New York Appellate Division, Third Department, recently affirmed the state Workers’ Compensation Board’s decision to disallow a claim for hearing loss based on improper ex parte communications between the...

NY Attorney’s Ex Parte Communication with MD Sinks Claim NY Attorney’s Ex Parte Communication with MD Sinks Claim
Dec 16, 2025

NC Supreme Court Applies a Demanding Joint Employment Standard in Deeply Divided Decision

In a 4–3 decision, the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and held that a construction company did not jointly employ an off-duty deputy sheriff injured while...

NC Supreme Court Applies a Demanding Joint Employment Standard in Deeply Divided Decision NC Supreme Court Applies a Demanding Joint Employment Standard in Deeply Divided Decision
Dec 11, 2025

Ohio Court Affirms Summary Judgment in Retaliation Case

Probationary Status and Multiple Witnesses Defeat Pretext Claim An Ohio appellate court has affirmed summary judgment for an employer in a workers’ compensation retaliation case where timing alone could not...

Ohio Court Affirms Summary Judgment in Retaliation Case Ohio Court Affirms Summary Judgment in Retaliation Case
Dec 9, 2025

PA Court Reverses PTSD Denial for Officer Who Shot Suspect in Life-or-Death Struggle

Yesterday, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court reversed a Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board decision affirming denial of benefits to a police officer who developed disabling PTSD following a November 2020 incident in...

PA Court Reverses PTSD Denial for Officer Who Shot Suspect in Life-or-Death Struggle PA Court Reverses PTSD Denial for Officer Who Shot Suspect in Life-or-Death Struggle
Dec 8, 2025

DE Supreme Court: Recurrence Finding Bars Coverage Following Commutation

The Delaware Supreme Court recently affirmed a decision applying the recurrence versus aggravation framework in a case with an unusual result: because the claimant had commuted his earlier workers’ compensation...

DE Supreme Court: Recurrence Finding Bars Coverage Following Commutation DE Supreme Court: Recurrence Finding Bars Coverage Following Commutation
Dec 4, 2025

When Customer Confrontations Turn Violent, Workers’ Comp May Still Control

Georgia Court Applies Exclusive Remedy to Customer Assault Claim The Georgia Court of Appeals recently addressed an unsettling scenario: a cashier who alleged she was stabbed by a disgruntled drive-through...

When Customer Confrontations Turn Violent, Workers’ Comp May Still Control When Customer Confrontations Turn Violent, Workers’ Comp May Still Control
Dec 2, 2025

NY Court of Appeals Issues Two Major COVID-19 Decisions

On November 24, 2025, the New York Court of Appeals issued two decisions that clarify the standards governing workers’ compensation claims arising from COVID-19. In Matter of McLaurin v. New...

NY Court of Appeals Issues Two Major COVID-19 Decisions NY Court of Appeals Issues Two Major COVID-19 Decisions
Dec 1, 2025

Borrowing Doctrines Across Systems: Arkansas Reconsiders Travel, Tort Liability, and the Temptation of Workers’ Compensation Analogies

Skala v. Comfort Systems USA, Inc., 2025 Ark. 183, 2025 Ark. LEXIS 144 (Nov. 20, 2025), is one of those cases where the doctrinal lines between two distinct bodies of...

Borrowing Doctrines Across Systems: Arkansas Reconsiders Travel, Tort Liability, and the Temptation of Workers’ Compensation Analogies Borrowing Doctrines Across Systems: Arkansas Reconsiders Travel, Tort Liability, and the Temptation of Workers’ Compensation Analogies
Nov 24, 2025

NY Court Reaffirms Limits on Board’s Authority to Reject Uncontroverted Medical Testimony

New York’s Appellate Division, Third Department, has again emphasized an important constraint on the Workers’ Compensation Board’s fact-finding prerogative: while the Board may weigh competing medical opinions, it may not...

NY Court Reaffirms Limits on Board’s Authority to Reject Uncontroverted Medical Testimony NY Court Reaffirms Limits on Board’s Authority to Reject Uncontroverted Medical Testimony
Nov 21, 2025

Idaho High Court Affirms Denial of COVID-19 Death Benefits Claim

The Idaho Supreme Court recently affirmed denial of workers’ compensation death benefits to the widow of a county road equipment operator who died from COVID-19 complications in October 2021, holding...

Idaho High Court Affirms Denial of COVID-19 Death Benefits Claim Idaho High Court Affirms Denial of COVID-19 Death Benefits Claim
Nov 19, 2025

Washington Court Rejects Attempt to Reduce Social Security Offset Based on Attorney Fees

In an unpublished decision, the Washington Court of Appeals has affirmed that the Department of Labor and Industries is not required to account for a claimant’s attorney fees when calculating...

Washington Court Rejects Attempt to Reduce Social Security Offset Based on Attorney Fees Washington Court Rejects Attempt to Reduce Social Security Offset Based on Attorney Fees

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