Newest Articles

Sep 10, 2026

Blackout Behind the Wheel

Indiana Holds That Driving at Highway Speed Increased the Risk of a Fainting Spell, Making the Resulting Crash Injuries Compensable The Indiana Court of Appeals has affirmed an award of...

Blackout Behind the Wheel Blackout Behind the Wheel
Sep 8, 2026

PA’s AMA Guides Law Beats Back a New Kind of Challenge

State Court Rejects Three Constitutional Theories Against Its Impairment-Rating Statute — Including One Never Tested Before A Pennsylvania appeals court has affirmed a modification from total to partial disability benefits...

PA’s AMA Guides Law Beats Back a New Kind of Challenge PA’s AMA Guides Law Beats Back a New Kind of Challenge
Sep 4, 2026

Sixteen “Matches,“ No Fraud

NY's Third Department Affirms the Board's Rejection of a § 114-a Finding Built on Mismatched Database Hits Yesterday, the Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed a Workers' Compensation Board decision finding...

Sixteen “Matches,“ No Fraud Sixteen “Matches,“ No Fraud
Sep 1, 2026

KY Supreme Court Clarifies Timing of Employer’s Subrogation Credit After Third-Party Settlement

The Kentucky Supreme Court has held that an employer’s statutory right to recover workers’ compensation benefits from an employee’s third-party settlement takes effect immediately, rejecting an argument that would have...

KY Supreme Court Clarifies Timing of Employer’s Subrogation Credit After Third-Party Settlement KY Supreme Court Clarifies Timing of Employer’s Subrogation Credit After Third-Party Settlement

All Articles

ARCHIVE
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
Dec 16, 2011

Pennsylvania Worker’s “Dual Persona” Tort Action Against Employer Fails

Since the enactment of the first state workers’ compensation laws one hundred years ago, exclusive remedy provisions within state acts have been a core component of the workers’ compensation “bargain.”...

Pennsylvania Worker’s “Dual Persona” Tort Action Against Employer Fails Pennsylvania Worker’s “Dual Persona” Tort Action Against Employer Fails
Dec 15, 2011

Michigan Plaintiff’s Retaliatory Discharge Action Fails

Finding that a discharged plaintiff had failed to establish that she engaged in a protected activity under the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act (WDCA), MCL 418.101 et seq., failed to demonstrate...

Michigan Plaintiff’s Retaliatory Discharge Action Fails Michigan Plaintiff’s Retaliatory Discharge Action Fails
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