Newest Articles

Aug 20, 2026

Issue Commentary: Iowa Looks at Vaccine‑Injury Compensability—and Leaves the Real Question for Another Day

Driscoll Agrees with the Larson Standard, Then Affirms Without Needing It The Iowa Court of Appeals has affirmed the denial of workers’ compensation benefits to a city employee who developed...

Issue Commentary: Iowa Looks at Vaccine‑Injury Compensability—and Leaves the Real Question for Another Day Issue Commentary: Iowa Looks at Vaccine‑Injury Compensability—and Leaves the Real Question for Another Day
Aug 20, 2026

Issue Commentary: Iowa Looks at Vaccine‑Injury Compensability—and Leaves the Real Question for Another Day

Driscoll Agrees with the Larson Standard, Then Affirms Without Needing It The Iowa Court of Appeals has affirmed the denial of workers’ compensation benefits to a city employee who developed...

Issue Commentary: Iowa Looks at Vaccine‑Injury Compensability—and Leaves the Real Question for Another Day Issue Commentary: Iowa Looks at Vaccine‑Injury Compensability—and Leaves the Real Question for Another Day
Aug 19, 2026

VA: One Basket, Two Injuries—and Only One Compensable Accident

In *Sairafianpour v. Loudoun County Public Schools*, 2026 Va. App. LEXIS 430 (Aug. 11, 2026), the Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed a Workers’ Compensation Commission decision awarding medical benefits...

VA: One Basket, Two Injuries—and Only One Compensable Accident VA: One Basket, Two Injuries—and Only One Compensable Accident
Aug 17, 2026

UT Supreme Court Affirms PTD Award—and Rejects Employer’s Claim to Employee’s Debt-Collection Settlement

In Granite School District v. Young, 2026 UT 29, 2026 Utah LEXIS 113 (Aug. 13, 2026), the Utah Supreme Court affirmed an award of permanent total disability benefits to a...

UT Supreme Court Affirms PTD Award—and Rejects Employer’s Claim to Employee’s Debt-Collection Settlement UT Supreme Court Affirms PTD Award—and Rejects Employer’s Claim to Employee’s Debt-Collection Settlement

All Articles

ARCHIVE
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
Feb 18, 2025

Drug Test Delay Dooms Kansas Employer’s Attempt to Deny Benefits

In an unpublished decision, a Kansas appellate court has struck down an employer’s attempt to deny workers’ compensation benefits to an employee who refused a drug test 18 days after...

Drug Test Delay Dooms Kansas Employer’s Attempt to Deny Benefits Drug Test Delay Dooms Kansas Employer’s Attempt to Deny Benefits
Feb 14, 2025

Cautious Medical Testimony Dooms NY Teacher’s Stroke Claim

In Matter of Tudor v. Whitehall Cent. Sch. Dist., 2025 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 827 (3d Dept., Feb. 13, 2025), the New York Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the state...

Cautious Medical Testimony Dooms NY Teacher’s Stroke Claim Cautious Medical Testimony Dooms NY Teacher’s Stroke Claim
Feb 13, 2025

Throwback Thursday: Kelly v. Federal Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. (1949)

Background On May 21, 1946, Kelly fell and injured his left knee in an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment with the employer. He...

Throwback Thursday: Kelly v. Federal Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. (1949) Throwback Thursday: Kelly v. Federal Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. (1949)
Feb 10, 2025

Florida Workers’ Comp Lien Includes Post-Settlement Benefits

A Florida appellate court has ruled that a workers’ compensation carrier’s statutory lien rights extend to all benefits paid through the date of equitable distribution, not merely those paid through...

Florida Workers’ Comp Lien Includes Post-Settlement Benefits Florida Workers’ Comp Lien Includes Post-Settlement Benefits
Feb 7, 2025

SC Supreme Court Rebukes Comp Comm’n in Change of Condition Dispute

In Russell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2025 S.C. LEXIS 13 (Jan. 29, 2025), the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed a Workers’ Compensation Commission ruling that denied an injured worker additional...

SC Supreme Court Rebukes Comp Comm’n in Change of Condition Dispute SC Supreme Court Rebukes Comp Comm’n in Change of Condition Dispute
Feb 6, 2025

Throwback Thursday: Bailey v. American General Ins. Co. (1955)

The Case and Its Context The 1955 Texas Supreme Court decision in Bailey v. American General Insurance Co., 154 Tex. 430, 279 S.W.2d 315 (1955), represents a landmark in the...

Throwback Thursday: Bailey v. American General Ins. Co. (1955) Throwback Thursday: Bailey v. American General Ins. Co. (1955)
Feb 4, 2025

Illinois: Work-Related Pain from Asymptomatic Preexisting Condition is Compensable

In a case of first impression, an Illinois appellate court has held that work-related pain alone—without accompanying structural change or worsening—can constitute a compensable aggravation of a pre-existing asymptomatic condition...

Illinois: Work-Related Pain from Asymptomatic Preexisting Condition is Compensable Illinois: Work-Related Pain from Asymptomatic Preexisting Condition is Compensable
Feb 3, 2025

GA Court: Refusal of Light-Duty Work Might Be Justified By COVID-19 Health Concerns

A Georgia appellate court recently reversed a state Workers’ Compensation Board decision that denied temporary total disability (TTD) benefits to an employee who refused light-duty work due to COVID-19 health...

GA Court: Refusal of Light-Duty Work Might Be Justified By COVID-19 Health Concerns GA Court: Refusal of Light-Duty Work Might Be Justified By COVID-19 Health Concerns
Jan 30, 2025

Throwback Thursday: Whetro v. Awkerman (1970)

When Mother Nature Met Workers’ Compensation On Palm Sunday 1965, a devastating series of tornadoes tore through southern Michigan. Among the victims were two workers: Carl Whetro, injured when the...

Throwback Thursday: Whetro v. Awkerman (1970) Throwback Thursday: Whetro v. Awkerman (1970)
Jan 28, 2025

“Traveling Employee” Exception Not Applicable in Third-Party Tort Action Against Ohio Employer

An Ohio employer cannot be held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for an employee’s negligent driving during a commute to work, even where the employee might reasonably be...

“Traveling Employee” Exception Not Applicable in Third-Party Tort Action Against Ohio Employer “Traveling Employee” Exception Not Applicable in Third-Party Tort Action Against Ohio Employer
Jan 27, 2025

IL Supreme Court: Widow Can Sue in Tort Although Husband’s Exposure to Toxins Occurred Before 2019 Legislative Change

An Illinois widow may pursue a civil action against her deceased husband’s employer for his asbestos-related death, even though his exposure occurred decades before a 2019 amendment to the state’s...

IL Supreme Court: Widow Can Sue in Tort Although Husband’s Exposure to Toxins Occurred Before 2019 Legislative Change IL Supreme Court: Widow Can Sue in Tort Although Husband’s Exposure to Toxins Occurred Before 2019 Legislative Change
Jan 23, 2025

Throwback Thursday: Booker v. Duke Medical Center (1979)

Background In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Robert Booker worked as a laboratory technician at Duke Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, performing routine chemical tests on blood specimens....

Throwback Thursday: Booker v. Duke Medical Center (1979) Throwback Thursday: Booker v. Duke Medical Center (1979)

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