Newest Articles

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
Feb 24, 2026

Issue Commentary: Where PA Worker’s Injury is Compensable, Does That Automatically Mean Co-Employee is Immune from Tort Liability?

PA Supreme Court Addresses Scope of Co-Employee Immunity In Brown v. Gaydos, 2026 Pa. LEXIS 267 (Pa. Feb. 18, 2026), a divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s reversal...

Issue Commentary: Where PA Worker’s Injury is Compensable, Does That Automatically Mean Co-Employee is Immune from Tort Liability? Issue Commentary: Where PA Worker’s Injury is Compensable, Does That Automatically Mean Co-Employee is Immune from Tort Liability?

All Articles

ARCHIVE
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
Jan 22, 2026

AZ Court: Personal Firearm Injury Did Not Arise Out of Employment

Yesterday, in Goins v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 2026 Ariz. App. LEXIS 16 (Div. 1, Jan. 21, 2026), an Arizona appellate court affirmed denial of workers' compensation benefits to an...

AZ Court: Personal Firearm Injury Did Not Arise Out of Employment AZ Court: Personal Firearm Injury Did Not Arise Out of Employment
Jan 20, 2026

Federal Inmate Injured in Prison Dog Training Program Cannot Pursue FTCA Claim

In Chandler v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6568 (D. Colo. Jan. 13, 2026), the United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed an inmate’s Federal Tort...

Federal Inmate Injured in Prison Dog Training Program Cannot Pursue FTCA Claim Federal Inmate Injured in Prison Dog Training Program Cannot Pursue FTCA Claim
Jan 16, 2026

CA Deputy Surgery Refusal Results in Disqualification from Disability Retirement Benefits

In Mendoza v. Board of Retirement of the Ventura County Employees’ Retirement Assn., 2025 Cal. App. LEXIS 865 (2d Dist. Dec. 3, 2025), a California appellate court affirmed denial of...

CA Deputy Surgery Refusal Results in Disqualification from Disability Retirement Benefits CA Deputy Surgery Refusal Results in Disqualification from Disability Retirement Benefits
Jan 14, 2026

NY Court Affirms Claim Abatement After Claimant’s Death

Board Exercised Discretion When Death Prevented IME and Cross-Examination on Psychiatric Injuries In Matter of Brady v. Town of Warwick, 2025 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7401 (3d Dept. Dec. 31,...

NY Court Affirms Claim Abatement After Claimant’s Death NY Court Affirms Claim Abatement After Claimant’s Death
Jan 12, 2026

Failure to Secure Comp Insurance Proves Costly for TN Company

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has affirmed a trial court’s holding that a carpenter performing construction work on a farm property was neither a “casual employee” nor a “farm/agricultural laborer”...

Failure to Secure Comp Insurance Proves Costly for TN Company Failure to Secure Comp Insurance Proves Costly for TN Company
Jan 8, 2026

Texas Court Affirms Summary Judgment in Grain Bin Death Case

The Texas Court of Appeals, Seventh District, recently affirmed summary judgment for an employer in a wrongful death action filed by the mother of an employee who suffered fatal injuries...

Texas Court Affirms Summary Judgment in Grain Bin Death Case Texas Court Affirms Summary Judgment in Grain Bin Death Case
Jan 7, 2026

Idaho Clarifies Causation for Recurrent Injuries

The Idaho Supreme Court has reversed the Idaho Industrial Commission’s denial of benefits in a case involving a recurrent tendon tear, holding that the Commission applied an incorrect causation standard...

Idaho Clarifies Causation for Recurrent Injuries Idaho Clarifies Causation for Recurrent Injuries
Dec 29, 2025

TN Supreme Court: Product Vendor Not a “Subcontractor” Under Workers’ Comp Law

The Tennessee Supreme Court recently held that a retail store chain was not a statutory employer of a product vendor’s injured employee, reversing the state’s Court of Appeals and adopting...

TN Supreme Court: Product Vendor Not a “Subcontractor” Under Workers’ Comp Law TN Supreme Court: Product Vendor Not a “Subcontractor” Under Workers’ Comp Law
Dec 22, 2025

NY Attorney’s Ex Parte Communication with MD Sinks Claim

The New York Appellate Division, Third Department, recently affirmed the state Workers’ Compensation Board’s decision to disallow a claim for hearing loss based on improper ex parte communications between the...

NY Attorney’s Ex Parte Communication with MD Sinks Claim NY Attorney’s Ex Parte Communication with MD Sinks Claim
Dec 16, 2025

NC Supreme Court Applies a Demanding Joint Employment Standard in Deeply Divided Decision

In a 4–3 decision, the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and held that a construction company did not jointly employ an off-duty deputy sheriff injured while...

NC Supreme Court Applies a Demanding Joint Employment Standard in Deeply Divided Decision NC Supreme Court Applies a Demanding Joint Employment Standard in Deeply Divided Decision
Dec 11, 2025

Ohio Court Affirms Summary Judgment in Retaliation Case

Probationary Status and Multiple Witnesses Defeat Pretext Claim An Ohio appellate court has affirmed summary judgment for an employer in a workers’ compensation retaliation case where timing alone could not...

Ohio Court Affirms Summary Judgment in Retaliation Case Ohio Court Affirms Summary Judgment in Retaliation Case
Dec 9, 2025

PA Court Reverses PTSD Denial for Officer Who Shot Suspect in Life-or-Death Struggle

Yesterday, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court reversed a Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board decision affirming denial of benefits to a police officer who developed disabling PTSD following a November 2020 incident in...

PA Court Reverses PTSD Denial for Officer Who Shot Suspect in Life-or-Death Struggle PA Court Reverses PTSD Denial for Officer Who Shot Suspect in Life-or-Death Struggle

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