Newest Articles

Aug 20, 2026

Issue Commentary: Iowa Looks at Vaccine‑Injury Compensability—and Leaves the Real Question for Another Day

Driscoll Agrees with the Larson Standard, Then Affirms Without Needing It The Iowa Court of Appeals has affirmed the denial of workers’ compensation benefits to a city employee who developed...

Issue Commentary: Iowa Looks at Vaccine‑Injury Compensability—and Leaves the Real Question for Another Day Issue Commentary: Iowa Looks at Vaccine‑Injury Compensability—and Leaves the Real Question for Another Day
Aug 20, 2026

Issue Commentary: Iowa Looks at Vaccine‑Injury Compensability—and Leaves the Real Question for Another Day

Driscoll Agrees with the Larson Standard, Then Affirms Without Needing It The Iowa Court of Appeals has affirmed the denial of workers’ compensation benefits to a city employee who developed...

Issue Commentary: Iowa Looks at Vaccine‑Injury Compensability—and Leaves the Real Question for Another Day Issue Commentary: Iowa Looks at Vaccine‑Injury Compensability—and Leaves the Real Question for Another Day
Aug 19, 2026

VA: One Basket, Two Injuries—and Only One Compensable Accident

In *Sairafianpour v. Loudoun County Public Schools*, 2026 Va. App. LEXIS 430 (Aug. 11, 2026), the Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed a Workers’ Compensation Commission decision awarding medical benefits...

VA: One Basket, Two Injuries—and Only One Compensable Accident VA: One Basket, Two Injuries—and Only One Compensable Accident
Aug 17, 2026

UT Supreme Court Affirms PTD Award—and Rejects Employer’s Claim to Employee’s Debt-Collection Settlement

In Granite School District v. Young, 2026 UT 29, 2026 Utah LEXIS 113 (Aug. 13, 2026), the Utah Supreme Court affirmed an award of permanent total disability benefits to a...

UT Supreme Court Affirms PTD Award—and Rejects Employer’s Claim to Employee’s Debt-Collection Settlement UT Supreme Court Affirms PTD Award—and Rejects Employer’s Claim to Employee’s Debt-Collection Settlement

All Articles

ARCHIVE
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
Jan 14, 2016

New Mexico Employer Need Not Accommodate Medical Marijuana Use

An employer need not accommodate a New Mexico employee’s use of medical marijuana, even when that use is sanctioned under the state’s Compassionate Use Act (“CUA”), held a federal district...

New Mexico Employer Need Not Accommodate Medical Marijuana Use New Mexico Employer Need Not Accommodate Medical Marijuana Use
Jan 7, 2016

Oregon Court Says Walking to Post Office Isn’t “Recreational” Just Because Employee Enjoyed the Activity

That an office worker enjoyed walking did not transform her trip to the post office during the workday into recreational activity, held an Oregon appellate court recently in Sedgwick Claims...

Oregon Court Says Walking to Post Office Isn’t “Recreational” Just Because Employee Enjoyed the Activity Oregon Court Says Walking to Post Office Isn’t “Recreational” Just Because Employee Enjoyed the Activity
Jan 5, 2016

California Court Uses Firefighter’s Rule to Bar Negligence Action By UPS Driver

Applying the firefighter’s rule, a specialized assumption of risk doctrine under which, in its most classic form, a person who starts a fire is said to owe no duty of...

California Court Uses Firefighter’s Rule to Bar Negligence Action By UPS Driver California Court Uses Firefighter’s Rule to Bar Negligence Action By UPS Driver
Dec 31, 2015

Nebraska Court: Injured Employee Failed to Establish Spinal Cord Stimulator Was Reasonable and Necessary

A Nebraska appellate court, in Yost v. Davita, Inc., 23 Neb. App. 482, 2015 Neb. App. LEXIS 204 (Dec. 29, 2015), affirmed a compensation court’s decision that an employer was...

Nebraska Court: Injured Employee Failed to Establish Spinal Cord Stimulator Was Reasonable and Necessary Nebraska Court: Injured Employee Failed to Establish Spinal Cord Stimulator Was Reasonable and Necessary
Dec 23, 2015

Florida Supreme Court Delivers Coup de Gras to Padgett

In a short—yet stinging—Order issued late yesterday [December 22, 2015], the Supreme Court of Florida declined to accept jurisdiction and accordingly denied a petition for review that had been filed...

Florida Supreme Court Delivers Coup de Gras to Padgett Florida Supreme Court Delivers Coup de Gras to Padgett
Dec 23, 2015

Iowa High Court Says Discovery Rule Applies to Single Trauma Injuries

In Baker v. Bridgestone/Firestone, 2015 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 103 (Dec. 18, 2015), the Supreme Court of Iowa recently held that the discovery rule in workers’ compensation law applies not only...

Iowa High Court Says Discovery Rule Applies to Single Trauma Injuries Iowa High Court Says Discovery Rule Applies to Single Trauma Injuries
Dec 11, 2015

Louisiana: Prescriptive Period Does Not Commence Until Party Has Knowledge of Cause of Action

Applying the “discovery rule” [see Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 126.05], pursuant to which the prescription period may be suspended where the cause of action is not known or reasonably...

Louisiana: Prescriptive Period Does Not Commence Until Party Has Knowledge of Cause of Action Louisiana: Prescriptive Period Does Not Commence Until Party Has Knowledge of Cause of Action
Dec 9, 2015

Amendments to Social Security Act in 2000 Do Not Trump Kansas Offset Statute

Overruling Dickens v. Pizza Co., Inc., 266 Kan. 1066, 1071, 974 P.2d 601 (1999), which had adopted an exception to the general rule allowing reduction in workers’ compensation benefits where...

Amendments to Social Security Act in 2000 Do Not Trump Kansas Offset Statute Amendments to Social Security Act in 2000 Do Not Trump Kansas Offset Statute
Dec 8, 2015

Illinois Police Officer’s Back Injury Lifting Duty Bag at Home Found Compensable

A police officer, who injured his back as he lifted his “duty bag” to place it in his personal vehicle prior to leaving his home for work sustained an injury...

Illinois Police Officer’s Back Injury Lifting Duty Bag at Home Found Compensable Illinois Police Officer’s Back Injury Lifting Duty Bag at Home Found Compensable
Dec 2, 2015

Washington Appellate Court Again Says “Tasered Trooper’s” Tort Action Not Barred by Exclusive Remedy Defense

Did Intermediate Appellate Court Abide by Supreme Court’s Remand Instructions? In a case that has ricocheted from a Washington state trial court to an intermediate appellate court and from that appellate court...

Washington Appellate Court Again Says “Tasered Trooper’s” Tort Action Not Barred by Exclusive Remedy Defense Washington Appellate Court Again Says “Tasered Trooper’s” Tort Action Not Barred by Exclusive Remedy Defense
Nov 9, 2015

Widow of Illinois Mesothelioma Victim Finds Herself with Catch–22

The widow of a worker who was diagnosed with mesothelioma some 40 years after his exposure to asbestos may not sue the former employer to recover damages since her exclusive...

Widow of Illinois Mesothelioma Victim Finds Herself with Catch–22 Widow of Illinois Mesothelioma Victim Finds Herself with Catch–22
Nov 5, 2015

Orwellian Equality: Oklahoma’s Controversial Workers’ Comp Opt Out Legislation

Original Workers’ Comp Scheme: Equal Treatment of All Injured Employees Within a State In Orwell’s classic allegorical work, Animal Farm, Snowball and Napoleon, recognizing the horrors of the status quo,...

Orwellian Equality: Oklahoma’s Controversial Workers’ Comp Opt Out Legislation Orwellian Equality: Oklahoma’s Controversial Workers’ Comp Opt Out Legislation

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