Newest Articles

Mar 6, 2026

New York’s Hidden Cost Problem: WCRI Examines the Price of Delivering Benefits

Every dollar spent on workers’ compensation falls into one of two broad categories: benefits paid to injured workers—medical care and wage replacement—and the costs of delivering those benefits. The second...

New York’s Hidden Cost Problem: WCRI Examines the Price of Delivering Benefits New York’s Hidden Cost Problem: WCRI Examines the Price of Delivering Benefits
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

All Articles

ARCHIVE
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
Oct 3, 2024

Colorado: Injured Employee May Proceed Against Employer’s UM/UIM Carrier

Answering a question certified to it by the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, the Supreme Court of Colorado held that an employee who receives workers’ compensation benefits...

Colorado: Injured Employee May Proceed Against Employer’s UM/UIM Carrier Colorado: Injured Employee May Proceed Against Employer’s UM/UIM Carrier
Oct 3, 2024

Maine High Court Clarifies When Interest on Specific-Loss Benefits Begins to Accrue for Specific Eye Injuries

In a well-reasoned decision that illustrates the difficulties courts sometime face in balancing competing interests within a workers’ compensation dispute, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine recently held that when...

Maine High Court Clarifies When Interest on Specific-Loss Benefits Begins to Accrue for Specific Eye Injuries Maine High Court Clarifies When Interest on Specific-Loss Benefits Begins to Accrue for Specific Eye Injuries
Oct 2, 2024

Nebraska High Court: Expert’s Use of “Associated” Was Sufficient to Establish Causation

The Supreme Court of Nebraska recently affirmed an award of benefits to a claimant who alleged respiratory injuries from wearing a UV-sterilized N95 mask at work [Prinz v. Omaha Operations...

Nebraska High Court: Expert’s Use of “Associated” Was Sufficient to Establish Causation Nebraska High Court: Expert’s Use of “Associated” Was Sufficient to Establish Causation
Sep 30, 2024

NY: Google Employee’s Post-Happy Hour Accident Arose From Employment

The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently affirmed a state Workers’ Compensation Board decision finding that a Google account executive’s injuries sustained after leaving a...

NY: Google Employee’s Post-Happy Hour Accident Arose From Employment NY: Google Employee’s Post-Happy Hour Accident Arose From Employment
Sep 27, 2024

Ohio Court Reiterates Unexplained Fall Doctrine

In a decision examining the tricky balance that must be maintained when in unexplained fall claims, the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth Appellate District, reversed a lower court’s ruling...

Ohio Court Reiterates Unexplained Fall Doctrine Ohio Court Reiterates Unexplained Fall Doctrine
Sep 24, 2024

Nevada Supreme Court Retreats from Earlier Decisions Related to Subrogation Liens

Overruling, in relevant part, two of its own prior decisions, the Supreme Court of Nevada, construing the state’s workers’ compensation subrogation statute, NRS § 616C.215(5), reversed a district court’s decision...

Nevada Supreme Court Retreats from Earlier Decisions Related to Subrogation Liens Nevada Supreme Court Retreats from Earlier Decisions Related to Subrogation Liens
Sep 21, 2024

Pennsylvania Court Affirms Asbestos Claim Outside Workers’ Compensation System

In a significant decision that reinforces the rights of workers with long-latency occupational diseases within the Keystone State, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania has affirmed in relevant part a trial...

Pennsylvania Court Affirms Asbestos Claim Outside Workers’ Compensation System Pennsylvania Court Affirms Asbestos Claim Outside Workers’ Compensation System

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