Newest Articles

Oct 5, 2026

Louisiana Court: Paid a Percentage, Still an Employee

LA Fourth Circuit, 3–2, Holds Dump-Truck Driver Paid 25% of Truck Earnings Was an Employee Despite 1099; Dissent Invokes Manifest-Error Review The Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit recently reversed...

Louisiana Court: Paid a Percentage, Still an Employee Louisiana Court: Paid a Percentage, Still an Employee
Sep 29, 2026

Alcohol Falls Outside KY’s Presumption of Causation

KY Supreme Court Holds the Statutory Presumption Against Recovery for Intoxicating Substances Does Not Apply to Alcohol The Kentucky Supreme Court has affirmed benefits for a traffic flagger who was...

Alcohol Falls Outside KY’s Presumption of Causation Alcohol Falls Outside KY’s Presumption of Causation
Sep 28, 2026

The Heart Has Wiring, Too

FL First DCA Holds Harlem’s Narrow “Heart Disease” Definition Does Not Bar a Firefighter’s Arrhythmia Claim Under the Heart-Lung Presumption Florida’s First District Court of Appeal has affirmed an award...

The Heart Has Wiring, Too The Heart Has Wiring, Too
Sep 24, 2026

“Closed” Under Old Rules, Reprocessed Under New

Oregon Court Applies New Claim-Closure Requirements to Case Pending on Judicial Review The Oregon Court of Appeals has held that 2022 amendments limiting retroactive “medically stationary” determinations apply to a...

“Closed” Under Old Rules, Reprocessed Under New “Closed” Under Old Rules, Reprocessed Under New

All Articles

ARCHIVE
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
Apr 21, 2025

MN High Court Reaffirms Case-Specific Standard in PTD Retirement Presumption Cases

In a thoughtful and clarifying opinion, the Minnesota Supreme Court has reaffirmed the case-specific nature of the statutory retirement presumption applicable to permanent total disability (PTD) claims under Minn. Stat....

MN High Court Reaffirms Case-Specific Standard in PTD Retirement Presumption Cases MN High Court Reaffirms Case-Specific Standard in PTD Retirement Presumption Cases
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)
Apr 8, 2025

NC Court Rejects Tort Claim for Workplace Fatality

In a decision that underscores the high bar for pursuing civil remedies alongside a workers’ compensation claim, the North Carolina Court of Appeals recently affirmed summary judgment against the estate...

NC Court Rejects Tort Claim for Workplace Fatality NC Court Rejects Tort Claim for Workplace Fatality
Apr 7, 2025

PA Court Upholds Medical-Only Notice of Compensation Payable Issued by Mistake

What happens when a claims adjuster clicks the wrong box in the third-party administrator’s software—and it accidentally binds the employer to a workers’ compensation claim? In City of Philadelphia v....

PA Court Upholds Medical-Only Notice of Compensation Payable Issued by Mistake PA Court Upholds Medical-Only Notice of Compensation Payable Issued by Mistake
Apr 3, 2025

Throwback Thursday: Graybeal v. Board of Supervisors (1975)

Rethinking the Limits of “Course of Employment” In traditional workers’ compensation doctrine, an injury must not only “arise out of” employment but also occur “in the course of” employment. Courts...

Throwback Thursday: Graybeal v. Board of Supervisors (1975) Throwback Thursday: Graybeal v. Board of Supervisors (1975)
Apr 1, 2025

Rear-Ended While Intoxicated—and Still Covered: A Careful Reading of NY’s § 10(1)

In a bizarre case that turned on the precise wording of N.Y. Workers' Comp. Law § 10(1), a state appellate court affirmed a Board decision awarding benefits to a claimant...

Rear-Ended While Intoxicated—and Still Covered: A Careful Reading of NY’s § 10(1) Rear-Ended While Intoxicated—and Still Covered: A Careful Reading of NY’s § 10(1)
Mar 31, 2025

Independent Contractor Peace Officer Not Covered by Workers’ Compensation

Texas Court Applies Motor Carrier Exception to General Contractor Rule A Texas appellate court has affirmed a trial court’s take-nothing judgment in favor of Texas Mutual Insurance Company, concluding that...

Independent Contractor Peace Officer Not Covered by Workers’ Compensation Independent Contractor Peace Officer Not Covered by Workers’ Compensation
Mar 27, 2025

Throwback Thursday: New York Central R. Co. v. White (1917)

Background The early 20th century saw a seismic shift in how American society approached workplace injuries. Before the widespread adoption of workers' compensation laws, injured workers typically had to sue...

Throwback Thursday: New York Central R. Co. v. White (1917) Throwback Thursday: New York Central R. Co. v. White (1917)
Mar 26, 2025

Routine Disciplinary Meeting Not a Compensable “Accident” Under NC’ Comp Act

In Muse v. Daimler Trucks N. Am., 2025 N.C. App. LEXIS 113 (Mar. 19, 2025), the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the Industrial Commission’s denial of workers’ compensation benefits...

Routine Disciplinary Meeting Not a Compensable “Accident” Under NC’ Comp Act Routine Disciplinary Meeting Not a Compensable “Accident” Under NC’ Comp Act

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