Newest Articles

Jun 2, 2026

Maine Supreme Court: Massachusetts Law Strips Staffing Client of Workers’ Compensation Immunity

Court Applies Massachusetts Law to Maine Injury, Rejects Immunity Defense in Multi-State Staffing Arrangement A New Hampshire contractor that likely would have enjoyed workers’ compensation immunity under Maine law lost...

Maine Supreme Court: Massachusetts Law Strips Staffing Client of Workers’ Compensation Immunity Maine Supreme Court: Massachusetts Law Strips Staffing Client of Workers’ Compensation Immunity
Jun 1, 2026

NY High Court Holds JIWA Bars Collateral Estoppel Effect of Pre-Enactment Workers’ Comp Decisions

New York’s Court of Appeals recently affirmed an Appellate Division order blocking defendants in a personal injury action from using a Workers’ Compensation Board causation determination as collateral estoppel, holding...

NY High Court Holds JIWA Bars Collateral Estoppel Effect of Pre-Enactment Workers’ Comp Decisions NY High Court Holds JIWA Bars Collateral Estoppel Effect of Pre-Enactment Workers’ Comp Decisions
May 27, 2026

Nebraska Supreme Court Affirms Denial of Death Benefits Where Work Injury Delayed Cancer Treatment

In a case involving a Nebraska truck driver-farm laborer whose treatment for metastatic cancer was allegedly postponed by complications associated with a compensable hip injury and its resulting treatment, the...

Nebraska Supreme Court Affirms Denial of Death Benefits Where Work Injury Delayed Cancer Treatment Nebraska Supreme Court Affirms Denial of Death Benefits Where Work Injury Delayed Cancer Treatment
May 26, 2026

NC Court of Appeals: Exclusivity Doctrine Bars Negligence Suit Following Workplace Stroke

A North Carolina district manager who suffered a stroke while preparing for the opening of a restaurant location—and who allegedly waited hours before coworkers summoned emergency assistance—may not pursue negligence...

NC Court of Appeals: Exclusivity Doctrine Bars Negligence Suit Following Workplace Stroke NC Court of Appeals: Exclusivity Doctrine Bars Negligence Suit Following Workplace Stroke

All Articles

ARCHIVE
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
Jun 26, 2025

Florida JCC Must Approve Fee Stipulation Absent Legitimate Grounds to Invalidate Agreement

In Fox v. Sarasota County School Board, 2025 Fla. App. LEXIS 4851 (Fla. 1st DCA June 25, 2025), the Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed a Judge of Compensation...

Florida JCC Must Approve Fee Stipulation Absent Legitimate Grounds to Invalidate Agreement Florida JCC Must Approve Fee Stipulation Absent Legitimate Grounds to Invalidate Agreement
Jun 24, 2025

NY Court: Attorney Fees Must Reflect Actual Claimant Recovery

The New York Appellate Division, Third Department, has resolved an important fee calculation issue for workers’ compensation practitioners. In Matter of Cooper v. New York City Health & Hospital Corp.,...

NY Court: Attorney Fees Must Reflect Actual Claimant Recovery NY Court: Attorney Fees Must Reflect Actual Claimant Recovery
Jun 23, 2025

NC Court Rejects “Woodson” Claim After Zirconium Explosion Death

In a tragic case involving a fatal explosion at a metal processing plant, the North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s refusal to grant summary judgment to the...

NC Court Rejects “Woodson” Claim After Zirconium Explosion Death NC Court Rejects “Woodson” Claim After Zirconium Explosion Death
Jun 19, 2025

Throwback Thursday: Cowart v. Pearl River Tung Co. (Miss. 1953)

Pre-Existing Conditions, Aggravation, and the Enduring Reach of Larson’s Rule In the evolving history of American workers’ compensation, few doctrines have proven more enduring—or more contentious—than the rule that employers...

Throwback Thursday: Cowart v. Pearl River Tung Co. (Miss. 1953) Throwback Thursday: Cowart v. Pearl River Tung Co. (Miss. 1953)
Jun 17, 2025

Florida Court Reinforces Exclusivity Doctrine and Procedural Requirements

In a case of apparent first impression, the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal has held that employees may not unilaterally declare workplace injuries non-compensable under workers’ compensation law and...

Florida Court Reinforces Exclusivity Doctrine and Procedural Requirements Florida Court Reinforces Exclusivity Doctrine and Procedural Requirements
Jun 16, 2025

W. Va. Supreme Court Reinstates COVID-19 Award for Nurse

Might Awards for the Common Cold or Flu be Next? In Foster v. Primecare Med. of W. Va., Inc., 2025 W. Va. LEXIS 187 (W. Va. May 27, 2025), a...

W. Va. Supreme Court Reinstates COVID-19 Award for Nurse W. Va. Supreme Court Reinstates COVID-19 Award for Nurse
Jun 9, 2025

WA Supreme Court Overturns Decade-Old Precedent: Reopens Door for Asbestos Claims

In a major shift that reopens the door for occupational disease claims, the Washington Supreme Court has overruled its 2014 decision in Walston v. Boeing Co., 181 Wn.2d 391, 334 P.3d 519...

WA Supreme Court Overturns Decade-Old Precedent: Reopens Door for Asbestos Claims WA Supreme Court Overturns Decade-Old Precedent: Reopens Door for Asbestos Claims
Jun 5, 2025

Throwback Thursday: Boyd v. Young (1951)

When Cancer Meets Causation: Wrestling with Medical Mystery in 1951 In workers’ compensation law, few challenges prove more vexing than establishing causation when the medical community itself admits ignorance about...

Throwback Thursday: Boyd v. Young (1951) Throwback Thursday: Boyd v. Young (1951)
Jun 3, 2025

Iowa High Court Says Gross Negligence/Fraud Claims Can Go Forward Against Tyson Executives

In an important decision construing the Iowa doctrine that allows gross negligence and fraudulent misrepresentation tort claims against co-employees, the Iowa Supreme Court has revived claims against Tyson Foods executives...

Iowa High Court Says Gross Negligence/Fraud Claims Can Go Forward Against Tyson Executives Iowa High Court Says Gross Negligence/Fraud Claims Can Go Forward Against Tyson Executives
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)

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