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
Sep 3, 2012

Missouri: Boyfriend’s Murder of Employee Did Not Arise From the Employment; Wrongful Death Action Not Barred by Exclusive Remedy Doctrine

Last Friday, a Missouri appellate court reversed a decision by a state trial court that had sustained a defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment in a wrongful death action filed against...

Missouri: Boyfriend’s Murder of Employee Did Not Arise From the Employment; Wrongful Death Action Not Barred by Exclusive Remedy Doctrine Missouri: Boyfriend’s Murder of Employee Did Not Arise From the Employment; Wrongful Death Action Not Barred by Exclusive Remedy Doctrine
Sep 1, 2012

Texas: Fired Employee May Not Maintain Retaliatory Discharge Action Against Non-Subscribing Employer

A Texas appellate court recently affirmed a decision by a state district court that had granted summary judgment in favor of a nursing center in a retaliatory discharge lawsuit filed...

Texas: Fired Employee May Not Maintain Retaliatory Discharge Action Against Non-Subscribing Employer Texas: Fired Employee May Not Maintain Retaliatory Discharge Action Against Non-Subscribing Employer
Aug 24, 2012

Pennsylvania: Claimant Who Settles Claim and Then Receives Large Doctor’s Bill May Not Rescind Compromise and Release Agreement Based on Mistake

A claimant’s receipt of a doctor’s bill showing an unpaid balance due of $37,674, after he and the employer had signed a Compromise and Release agreement settling the claimant’s workers’...

Pennsylvania: Claimant Who Settles Claim and Then Receives Large Doctor’s Bill May Not Rescind Compromise and Release Agreement Based on Mistake Pennsylvania: Claimant Who Settles Claim and Then Receives Large Doctor’s Bill May Not Rescind Compromise and Release Agreement Based on Mistake
Aug 23, 2012

Maryland: Forum Selection Clause in Pro Football Employment Agreement Cannot Trump State Law

In a case involving a claim by a former Washington Redskins professional football player for benefits under the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Act, based upon an injury during pre-game warm-up at...

Maryland: Forum Selection Clause in Pro Football Employment Agreement Cannot Trump State Law Maryland: Forum Selection Clause in Pro Football Employment Agreement Cannot Trump State Law
Aug 18, 2012

Pennsylvania: Trip to the Salad Bar Proves Fatal for College Professor

In a case with somewhat bizarre facts [see Pennsylvania State Univ. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Rabin), 2012 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 245], a Pennsylvania appellate court recently affirmed an award...

Pennsylvania: Trip to the Salad Bar Proves Fatal for College Professor Pennsylvania: Trip to the Salad Bar Proves Fatal for College Professor
Aug 3, 2012

Alabama: Court Reverses Award of Benefits to Truck Driver Bitten by Rattlesnake

As a father of three sons and a daughter–they’re all grown now–I’ve had more than one occasion to repeat to myself a favorite line spoken by another dad, this one...

Alabama: Court Reverses Award of Benefits to Truck Driver Bitten by Rattlesnake Alabama: Court Reverses Award of Benefits to Truck Driver Bitten by Rattlesnake
Aug 2, 2012

VA: Nurse’s Injury to Finger As She Reached Into Personal Handbag To Retrieve “Favorite” Pen Is Not Compensable

The Court of Appeals of Virginia recently reversed a decision by the state’s Workers’ Compensation Commission that had awarded workers’ compensation benefits to a nurse who injured her finger on...

VA: Nurse’s Injury to Finger As She Reached Into Personal Handbag To Retrieve “Favorite” Pen Is Not Compensable VA: Nurse’s Injury to Finger As She Reached Into Personal Handbag To Retrieve “Favorite” Pen Is Not Compensable
Jul 29, 2012

VA: Virginia Court Mischaracterizes “Actual Risk” Test in Determining Legal Causation, Yet Offers Motherly Advice: “Waiters, Take Small Bites!”

Affirming a decision of the state’s Workers’ Compensation Commission that had denied benefits to a restaurant host/waiter who injured his esophagus while attempting to swallow a bite of quesadilla that...

VA: Virginia Court Mischaracterizes “Actual Risk” Test in Determining Legal Causation, Yet Offers Motherly Advice: “Waiters, Take Small Bites!” VA: Virginia Court Mischaracterizes “Actual Risk” Test in Determining Legal Causation, Yet Offers Motherly Advice: “Waiters, Take Small Bites!”
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

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