Newest Articles

Jul 16, 2026

Personal Comfort Doctrine Reaches a Formal, Unpaid Break

PA Court Finds a 15-Minute Break’s Brevity Outweighs Its Formality The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania recently affirmed an award of workers’ compensation benefits to a pharmacy technician struck by a...

Personal Comfort Doctrine Reaches a Formal, Unpaid Break Personal Comfort Doctrine Reaches a Formal, Unpaid Break
Jul 14, 2026

Trucker’s Retaliation Claim Runs Aground in His Own Hay Field

Idaho Federal Court Finds Surveillance and a Full-Duty Release Defeat Workers' Comp Retaliatory Discharge Claim The U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho recently granted summary judgment for a...

Trucker’s Retaliation Claim Runs Aground in His Own Hay Field Trucker’s Retaliation Claim Runs Aground in His Own Hay Field
Jul 13, 2026

FL High Court Rejects Motive Requirement for Workplace Assault Claims

Risk-Exposure Evidence Alone Can Establish the Causal Link, Justices Hold Last Thursday, In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Muñiz, the Supreme Court of Florida held that a workplace assault...

FL High Court Rejects Motive Requirement for Workplace Assault Claims FL High Court Rejects Motive Requirement for Workplace Assault Claims
Jul 8, 2026

KY Court Revives Tort Claims From Mayfield Candle Factory Tornado Deaths

Supervisors Who Allegedly Blocked Exits Fell Outside the Workers’ Comp Act’s Exclusive Remedy The Kentucky Court of Appeals has revived tort claims brought by survivors of the December 2021 tornado...

KY Court Revives Tort Claims From Mayfield Candle Factory Tornado Deaths KY Court Revives Tort Claims From Mayfield Candle Factory Tornado Deaths

All Articles

ARCHIVE
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
Jun 9, 2025

WA Supreme Court Overturns Decade-Old Precedent: Reopens Door for Asbestos Claims

In a major shift that reopens the door for occupational disease claims, the Washington Supreme Court has overruled its 2014 decision in Walston v. Boeing Co., 181 Wn.2d 391, 334 P.3d 519...

WA Supreme Court Overturns Decade-Old Precedent: Reopens Door for Asbestos Claims WA Supreme Court Overturns Decade-Old Precedent: Reopens Door for Asbestos Claims
Jun 5, 2025

Throwback Thursday: Boyd v. Young (1951)

When Cancer Meets Causation: Wrestling with Medical Mystery in 1951 In workers’ compensation law, few challenges prove more vexing than establishing causation when the medical community itself admits ignorance about...

Throwback Thursday: Boyd v. Young (1951) Throwback Thursday: Boyd v. Young (1951)
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)
May 20, 2025

Food Delivery Driver’s Tort Claim Against Pizzeria Barred by KY’s Up-the-Ladder Immunity Rule

In a fresh decision that further solidifies Kentucky’s robust up-the-ladder immunity doctrine, a federal district court has dismissed a negligence action filed by a food supplier’s delivery driver against a...

Food Delivery Driver’s Tort Claim Against Pizzeria Barred by KY’s Up-the-Ladder Immunity Rule Food Delivery Driver’s Tort Claim Against Pizzeria Barred by KY’s Up-the-Ladder Immunity Rule
May 19, 2025

MS Court of Appeals Applies Intoxication Presumption in Rooftop Fall Case

In Ladner v. Hinton Homes LLC, 2025 Miss. App. LEXIS 171 (Miss. Ct. App. May 6, 2025), the Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of workers’ compensation benefits to...

MS Court of Appeals Applies Intoxication Presumption in Rooftop Fall Case MS Court of Appeals Applies Intoxication Presumption in Rooftop Fall Case
May 15, 2025

Throwback Thursday: Kowalski v. Shell Oil Co. (Cal. 1979)

Lent Employees and the Boundary of the Employment Relationship In the long and sometimes tangled history of American workers’ compensation law, few issues generate more uncertainty—and more litigation—than lent employment....

Throwback Thursday: Kowalski v. Shell Oil Co. (Cal. 1979) Throwback Thursday: Kowalski v. Shell Oil Co. (Cal. 1979)
May 13, 2025

Pennsylvania Pharmacy May Not be Joined as Party in Comp Case

In a decision released earlier this week, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania drew a firm jurisdictional line in a billing dispute that grew out of a utilization review determination. In...

Pennsylvania Pharmacy May Not be Joined as Party in Comp Case Pennsylvania Pharmacy May Not be Joined as Party in Comp Case
May 12, 2025

Final Means Final—Even When the Law Changes

Favorable Ruling by NY High Court Cannot Support Employer’s Reopening Request In Matter of Coyle v. W & W Steel Erectors LLC, 2025 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2889 (3d Dept....

Final Means Final—Even When the Law Changes Final Means Final—Even When the Law Changes
May 8, 2025

Throwback Thursday: Bridges v. Elite, Inc. (S.C. 1948)

Imported Quarrels and the Boundaries of Employment Risk In Bridges v. Elite, Inc., 212 S.C. 514, 48 S.E.2d 497 (S.C. 1948), the Supreme Court of South Carolina reversed a decision...

Throwback Thursday: Bridges v. Elite, Inc. (S.C. 1948) Throwback Thursday: Bridges v. Elite, Inc. (S.C. 1948)

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