Newest Articles

Mar 5, 2026

Delaware Supreme Court Reinstates IAB’s Denial of Sole Proprietor Coverage

In Motors v. Bayly (Red House Motors d/b/a Bayly’s Garage), 2026 Del. LEXIS 92 (Mar. 2, 2026), the Delaware Supreme Court reversed a Superior Court decision that the high court...

Delaware Supreme Court Reinstates IAB’s Denial of Sole Proprietor Coverage Delaware Supreme Court Reinstates IAB’s Denial of Sole Proprietor Coverage
Mar 3, 2026

Florida Court Invalidates Rules Expanding “Absolute Choice” Pharmacy Provision

In Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Department of Financial Services, 2026 Fla. App. LEXIS 1469 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb. 25, 2026), the First District Court of Appeal recently held that...

Florida Court Invalidates Rules Expanding “Absolute Choice” Pharmacy Provision Florida Court Invalidates Rules Expanding “Absolute Choice” Pharmacy Provision
Feb 26, 2026

Florida Court: IME Report Is Not a “Prescription” for Attendant Care

The Florida First District Court of Appeal has reversed an award of 24-hour attendant care benefits where the only “prescription” supporting the award appeared in an Independent Medical Examiner’s report...

Florida Court: IME Report Is Not a “Prescription” for Attendant Care Florida Court: IME Report Is Not a “Prescription” for Attendant Care
Feb 24, 2026

Issue Commentary: Where PA Worker’s Injury is Compensable, Does That Automatically Mean Co-Employee is Immune from Tort Liability?

PA Supreme Court Addresses Scope of Co-Employee Immunity In Brown v. Gaydos, 2026 Pa. LEXIS 267 (Pa. Feb. 18, 2026), a divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s reversal...

Issue Commentary: Where PA Worker’s Injury is Compensable, Does That Automatically Mean Co-Employee is Immune from Tort Liability? Issue Commentary: Where PA Worker’s Injury is Compensable, Does That Automatically Mean Co-Employee is Immune from Tort Liability?

All Articles

ARCHIVE
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
Jun 10, 2013

Ohio: Court Reverses Award For Facial Disfigurement Where Commission’s Findings Were Inadequate Under Statute

An Ohio appellate court recently reversed an award by the state’s Industrial Commission that allowed a claimant $4,000 of additional compensation for facial disfigurement under Ohio Rev. Code § 4123.57(B),...

Ohio: Court Reverses Award For Facial Disfigurement Where Commission’s Findings Were Inadequate Under Statute Ohio: Court Reverses Award For Facial Disfigurement Where Commission’s Findings Were Inadequate Under Statute
Jun 10, 2013

Connecticut: Special Statute Providing Benefits to Police Officers and Firefighters Injured During “Commute” Did Not Apply to Injury in Officer’s Driveway

The basic “going and coming” rule, in effect in the vast majority of jurisdictions, is that for an employee having fixed hours and place of work, injuries sustained going to...

Connecticut: Special Statute Providing Benefits to Police Officers and Firefighters Injured During “Commute” Did Not Apply to Injury in Officer’s Driveway Connecticut: Special Statute Providing Benefits to Police Officers and Firefighters Injured During “Commute” Did Not Apply to Injury in Officer’s Driveway
Jun 5, 2013

Ohio: Supreme Court Reiterates that Mental Injury Must Be Caused By, and Not Merely Contemporaneous With, Physical Injury To Support Comp Claim

In a divided decision affirming a ruling last year by a state intermediate appellate court, the Supreme Court of Ohio has reiterated that in order for a mental condition (here...

Ohio: Supreme Court Reiterates that Mental Injury Must Be Caused By, and Not Merely Contemporaneous With, Physical Injury To Support Comp Claim Ohio: Supreme Court Reiterates that Mental Injury Must Be Caused By, and Not Merely Contemporaneous With, Physical Injury To Support Comp Claim
Jun 4, 2013

Nebraska: High Court Affirms Dismissal of Intentional Tort Action Filed Against Employer That Violated Multiple OSHA Regulations; Action Barred by Exclusive Remedy Defense

The Supreme Court of Nebraska recently affirmed a decision of a county district court that had dismissed a tort action filed against the defendant-employer by the estate of an employee...

Nebraska: High Court Affirms Dismissal of Intentional Tort Action Filed Against Employer That Violated Multiple OSHA Regulations; Action Barred by Exclusive Remedy Defense Nebraska: High Court Affirms Dismissal of Intentional Tort Action Filed Against Employer That Violated Multiple OSHA Regulations; Action Barred by Exclusive Remedy Defense
Jun 3, 2013

Durham, NC: Recovering from Appendicitis

As a number of my friends and colleagues already know, I’ve been out of commission for the past nine days.  I underwent surgery eight days ago for a ruptured appendix....

Durham, NC: Recovering from Appendicitis Durham, NC: Recovering from Appendicitis
May 22, 2013

Iowa: Injuries Sustained in Janitor’s Idiopathic Fall Found Compensable

Reversing a decision by a state trial court that had, in turn, reversed an award of workers’ compensation benefits in favor of a seventy-nine-year-old part-time janitor who had suffered an...

Iowa: Injuries Sustained in Janitor’s Idiopathic Fall Found Compensable Iowa: Injuries Sustained in Janitor’s Idiopathic Fall Found Compensable
May 10, 2013

Arizona: Scar on Neck Qualifies for Facial/Head Disfigurement Award

An Arizona appellate court recently upheld a workers’ compensation award in the form of facial disfigurement benefits where the injured worker, a truck driver, sustained a five-inch scar on his...

Arizona: Scar on Neck Qualifies for Facial/Head Disfigurement Award Arizona: Scar on Neck Qualifies for Facial/Head Disfigurement Award
May 9, 2013

Oklahoma: Workers’ Compensation “Opt-Out” Provisions Become Law

On Tuesday (May 7), Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin signed into law Senate Bill 1062, a legislative piece that purports to reform the state’s workers’ compensation system in two broad fashions:...

Oklahoma: Workers’ Compensation “Opt-Out” Provisions Become Law Oklahoma: Workers’ Compensation “Opt-Out” Provisions Become Law
Apr 29, 2013

Montana: Carrier’s Decision to Stop Paying For Pain Medication Did Not Justify Attorney’s Fee Award Where Decision Was Based On Prior Decision of Workers’ Compensation Court

Stressing that “reasonableness” is a question of fact and that the review the Workers’ Compensation Court’s findings of fact were to be affirmed if supported by substantial credible evidence, the...

Montana: Carrier’s Decision to Stop Paying For Pain Medication Did Not Justify Attorney’s Fee Award Where Decision Was Based On Prior Decision of Workers’ Compensation Court Montana: Carrier’s Decision to Stop Paying For Pain Medication Did Not Justify Attorney’s Fee Award Where Decision Was Based On Prior Decision of Workers’ Compensation Court
Apr 19, 2013

Rhode Island: Utilizing “Street-Peril” or Street Risk Doctrine, Supreme Court Reverses Denial of Claim by Verizon Employee Assaulted by Random Stranger

The Supreme Court of Rhode Island recently quashed a decree by the state’s Workers’ Compensation Court Appellate Division that in turn had affirmed a denial of workers’ compensation benefits to...

Rhode Island: Utilizing “Street-Peril” or Street Risk Doctrine, Supreme Court Reverses Denial of Claim by Verizon Employee Assaulted by Random Stranger Rhode Island: Utilizing “Street-Peril” or Street Risk Doctrine, Supreme Court Reverses Denial of Claim by Verizon Employee Assaulted by Random Stranger
Apr 17, 2013

New Mexico: Late Filing of Death Benefits Claim May Be Excused Where Delay Was Due, In Part, to Actions of Employer

The Supreme Court of New Mexico recently held that a death benefits claim filed by the widow of an off-duty police officer, who drowned while rescuing a twelve-year-old boy from...

New Mexico: Late Filing of Death Benefits Claim May Be Excused Where Delay Was Due, In Part, to Actions of Employer New Mexico: Late Filing of Death Benefits Claim May Be Excused Where Delay Was Due, In Part, to Actions of Employer
Apr 16, 2013

Minnesota: Costs to Modify Injured Worker’s Residence to Allow For Installation of Lift System Was Limited to Statutory Max of $60K

Installation of a lift system to enable paraplegic to transfer to and from her wheelchair more safely and to live more independently were remodeling costs subject to the $60,000 limit...

Minnesota: Costs to Modify Injured Worker’s Residence to Allow For Installation of Lift System Was Limited to Statutory Max of $60K Minnesota: Costs to Modify Injured Worker’s Residence to Allow For Installation of Lift System Was Limited to Statutory Max of $60K

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