Newest Articles

Apr 17, 2025

Throwback Thursday: O’Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon, Inc. (U.S., 1951)

Introduction In 1951, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in O’Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon, Inc., 340 U.S. 504, 71 S.Ct. 470, 95 L.Ed.483 (1951). The case involved a claim...

Throwback Thursday: O’Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon, Inc. (U.S., 1951) Throwback Thursday: O’Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon, Inc. (U.S., 1951)
Apr 15, 2025

Arkansas Court Denies Benefits to Good Samaritan Band Director

In a ruling that reaffirms Arkansas’ strict interpretation of its “employment services” requirement, the state’s Court of Appeals recently affirmed a Workers’ Compensation Commission decision denying benefits to the family...

Arkansas Court Denies Benefits to Good Samaritan Band Director Arkansas Court Denies Benefits to Good Samaritan Band Director
Apr 14, 2025

Louisiana Court Rejects “Borrowed Employee” Theory in Workplace Attack

In a decision that further defines the barriers to pursuing civil remedies in workplace injury cases within the Louisiana, a state appellant court recently affirmed summary a trial court judgment...

Louisiana Court Rejects “Borrowed Employee” Theory in Workplace Attack Louisiana Court Rejects “Borrowed Employee” Theory in Workplace Attack
Apr 10, 2025

Throwback Thursday: Hawk v. Jim Hawk Chevrolet-Buick, Inc., 282 N.W.2d 84 (Iowa 1979)

Background On September 28, 1973, at approximately 2:30 a.m., James Hawk II, the president, sole stockholder, and chief operating officer of Jim Hawk Chevrolet-Buick, Inc., died when his private airplane...

Throwback Thursday: Hawk v. Jim Hawk Chevrolet-Buick, Inc., 282 N.W.2d 84 (Iowa 1979) Throwback Thursday: Hawk v. Jim Hawk Chevrolet-Buick, Inc., 282 N.W.2d 84 (Iowa 1979)

All Articles

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

New Comments

  • 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
  • Thomas A. Robinson: Good point, although the interesting thing about the case--at least to me--is that it discusses the important "injury by accident" issue. That issue, present in at least a plurality of state acts, is largely ignored by Commissions, Boards, and Courts these days. Here, also, the case was so fact-specific that even it had been issued as published, it would be factually distinguishable from many othe...