Newest Articles

Jul 31, 2026

Ohio Court: Retirement Doesn’t Sever TTD Eligibility When the Claimant Was Already Disabled

Tenth District Distinguishes AutoZone Where Surgery, Not Retirement, Came First The Tenth District Court of Appeals for Franklin County has granted a writ of mandamus ordering the Industrial Commission of...

Ohio Court: Retirement Doesn’t Sever TTD Eligibility When the Claimant Was Already Disabled Ohio Court: Retirement Doesn’t Sever TTD Eligibility When the Claimant Was Already Disabled
Jul 29, 2026

Texas DWC Can Sanction Chiropractor for Expired License Even Though Another Board Controls the License

Appeals Court Affirms $12,000 Penalty for Licensing Lapse The Texas Court of Appeals for the Fifteenth District affirmed a $12,000 administrative penalty against a chiropractor who continued treating and billing...

Texas DWC Can Sanction Chiropractor for Expired License Even Though Another Board Controls the License Texas DWC Can Sanction Chiropractor for Expired License Even Though Another Board Controls the License
Jul 28, 2026

Outdated DSM Doesn’t Automatically Sink an Employer’s Rebuttal of the PTSD Presumption

MN Supreme Court Reverses WCCA and Remands Unresolved Issues The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that an employer may rebut the statutory presumption for work-related PTSD through evidence other than...

Outdated DSM Doesn’t Automatically Sink an Employer’s Rebuttal of the PTSD Presumption Outdated DSM Doesn’t Automatically Sink an Employer’s Rebuttal of the PTSD Presumption
Jul 24, 2026

TX Court Affirms Exclusive Remedy Bar Despite Crew Leader’s Alleged Assault

Supervisor’s Authority Over PPE Didn't Make Him a “Vice Principal” The Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, affirmed summary judgment for an employer on all of an injured worker’s...

TX Court Affirms Exclusive Remedy Bar Despite Crew Leader’s Alleged Assault TX Court Affirms Exclusive Remedy Bar Despite Crew Leader’s Alleged Assault

All Articles

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

Nebraska High Court Nixes Pre-Employment Questionnaire “Misrepresentation” Defense

Holding that its decades-old adoption of the equitable misrepresentation defense in Hilt Truck Lines, Inc. v. Jones, 204 Neb. 115, 281 N.W.2d 399 (1979) was “clearly erroneous,” the Supreme Court...

Nebraska High Court Nixes Pre-Employment Questionnaire “Misrepresentation” Defense Nebraska High Court Nixes Pre-Employment Questionnaire “Misrepresentation” Defense

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