Newest Articles

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)

All Articles

ARCHIVE
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
Jul 13, 2012

South Carolina: Deputy Sheriff’s PTSD Claim in Connection With Fatal Shooting of Suspect Is Not Compensable–No “Extraordinary or Unusual Employment Condition” Existed

On Wednesday, a divided Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed a unanimous finding of an Appellate Panel of the state’s Workers’ Compensation Commission that a deputy sheriff failed to meet...

South Carolina: Deputy Sheriff’s PTSD Claim in Connection With Fatal Shooting of Suspect Is Not Compensable–No “Extraordinary or Unusual Employment Condition” Existed

South Carolina: Deputy Sheriff’s PTSD Claim in Connection With Fatal Shooting of Suspect Is Not Compensable–No “Extraordinary or Unusual Employment Condition” Existed

Jul 12, 2012

Texas: Communication by Comp Carrier’s Counsel to Insured Employer Not Protected by Attorney—Client Privilege

With one justice dissenting, the Supreme Court of Texas recently held that in a bad faith action brought by an injured employee against a workers’ compensation insurer, the attorney—client privilege...

Texas: Communication by Comp Carrier’s Counsel to Insured Employer Not Protected by Attorney—Client Privilege Texas: Communication by Comp Carrier’s Counsel to Insured Employer Not Protected by Attorney—Client Privilege
Jul 4, 2012

New Jersey: OSHA Violation is Insufficient to Show Necessary Level of “Intent” to Support Tort Claim Against Employer

As noted in my June 6, 2012 discussion of Estes v. Airco Serv., Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72134 (N.D. Okla., May 24, 2012), below, an important exception to the...

New Jersey: OSHA Violation is Insufficient to Show Necessary Level of “Intent” to Support Tort Claim Against Employer New Jersey: OSHA Violation is Insufficient to Show Necessary Level of “Intent” to Support Tort Claim Against Employer
Jun 30, 2012

Arkansas: Only Partial Offset of Claimant’s Disability Benefits By Retirement Benefits Allowed

Workers’ compensation, unemployment compensation, nonoccupational sickness and disability insurance, and old age and survivors’ and disability insurance are all based upon a common principle and a common operative fact: wage...

Arkansas: Only Partial Offset of Claimant’s Disability Benefits By Retirement Benefits Allowed Arkansas: Only Partial Offset of Claimant’s Disability Benefits By Retirement Benefits Allowed
Jun 29, 2012

Oregon: Police Lieutenant’s Injuries During Coffee Break Are Compensable

On Wednesday, the Court of Appeals of Oregon, in McDermed v. City of Eugene, 2012 Ore. App. LEXIS 796 (June 27, 2012), affirmed an award of workers’ compensation benefits to...

Oregon: Police Lieutenant’s Injuries During Coffee Break Are Compensable Oregon: Police Lieutenant’s Injuries During Coffee Break Are Compensable
Jun 21, 2012

Ohio: Unpaid Work for Wife’s Business Warranted Forfeiture of Benefits, But Not Finding of Fraudulent Activity

The Supreme Court of Ohio, affirming a decision of a lower level appellate court, recently held that while a claimant could not receive temporary total disability (TTD) benefits for any...

Ohio: Unpaid Work for Wife’s Business Warranted Forfeiture of Benefits, But Not Finding of Fraudulent Activity Ohio: Unpaid Work for Wife’s Business Warranted Forfeiture of Benefits, But Not Finding of Fraudulent Activity
Jun 16, 2012

Missouri: Survivors May Proceed in Tort Against Uninsured Employer After Recovering Workers’ Compensation Benefits From Statutory Employer–No Election of Remedies Problem

In a 4–3 decision, the Supreme Court of Missouri recently reversed the decision of a state trial court that earlier had held a workers’ compensation award against a statutory employer...

Missouri: Survivors May Proceed in Tort Against Uninsured Employer After Recovering Workers’ Compensation Benefits From Statutory Employer–No Election of Remedies Problem Missouri: Survivors May Proceed in Tort Against Uninsured Employer After Recovering Workers’ Compensation Benefits From Statutory Employer–No Election of Remedies Problem
Jun 15, 2012

Virginia: Non-Dependent Relative of Deceased Worker Caught in Catch-22

In the vast majority of states, non-dependent relatives of employees who suffer fatal work-related injuries are caught in a Catch-22. Since most state acts limit workers’ compensation death benefits to...

Virginia: Non-Dependent Relative of Deceased Worker Caught in Catch-22 Virginia: Non-Dependent Relative of Deceased Worker Caught in Catch-22
Jun 8, 2012

Maryland: Supervisor May Be Sued By Co-Employee re: Parking Lot Vehicular Accident

All but four states (Arkansas, Missouri, Maryland, Vermont, plus the Virgin Islands) extend immunity from tort liability not only to the employer, but co-employees, at least as long as the...

Maryland: Supervisor May Be Sued By Co-Employee re: Parking Lot Vehicular Accident Maryland: Supervisor May Be Sued By Co-Employee re: Parking Lot Vehicular Accident
Jun 6, 2012

US: 2010 Statutory Amendment Spelled “Certain” Demise of Oklahoma’s “Substantially Certain” Rule in Intentional Injury Actions Against Employers

An important exception to the exclusive remedy rule relates to intentional injury inflicted by the employer on an employee. Several legal theories have been advanced to support the exception. The...

US: 2010 Statutory Amendment Spelled “Certain” Demise of Oklahoma’s “Substantially Certain” Rule in Intentional Injury Actions Against Employers US: 2010 Statutory Amendment Spelled “Certain” Demise of Oklahoma’s “Substantially Certain” Rule in Intentional Injury Actions Against Employers
May 31, 2012

Missouri: Divided Supreme Court Reverses Award of Benefits to Employee Injured Making Coffee for Herself and Others in the Office Kitchen

The Supreme Court of Missouri, in a split decision, construing the state’s version of the “increased-risk” doctrine, on Tuesday (May 29) reversed an award of workers’ compensation benefits to an...

Missouri: Divided Supreme Court Reverses Award of Benefits to Employee Injured Making Coffee for Herself and Others in the Office Kitchen Missouri: Divided Supreme Court Reverses Award of Benefits to Employee Injured Making Coffee for Herself and Others in the Office Kitchen
May 29, 2012

Virginia: Claimant Awarded Post-Termination PD Benefits; Her Poor Performance Was In Part Tied to Her Compensable Injuries

As noted by Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 84.02 et seq., some of the most complex disability questions arise when the claimant returns to some kind of employment after the...

Virginia: Claimant Awarded Post-Termination PD Benefits; Her Poor Performance Was In Part Tied to Her Compensable Injuries Virginia: Claimant Awarded Post-Termination PD Benefits; Her Poor Performance Was In Part Tied to Her Compensable Injuries

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...