Newest Articles

Nov 4, 2024

Understanding the Odd-Lot Doctrine in Workers’ Compensation Law: Origins, Evolution, and Modern Application

Origins and Commercial Context Within commercial and financial contexts, the term “odd lot” has long been used to describe non-standard quantities of goods or securities that, because of their irregular...

Understanding the Odd-Lot Doctrine in Workers’ Compensation Law: Origins, Evolution, and Modern Application Understanding the Odd-Lot Doctrine in Workers’ Compensation Law: Origins, Evolution, and Modern Application
Oct 28, 2024

IL Appellate Court Awards TPD Benefits Under Odd-Lot Doctrine

Last week, in an unpublished decision, an Illinois appellate court reversed a Workers’ Compensation Commission’s denial of permanent total disability benefits, holding that a 77-year-old bus driver qualified for benefits...

IL Appellate Court Awards TPD Benefits Under Odd-Lot Doctrine IL Appellate Court Awards TPD Benefits Under Odd-Lot Doctrine
Oct 25, 2024

KY High Court: Injuries Sustained in Las Vegas Slip and Fall While Shopping are Compensable

Yesterday, relying heavily upon the discussion of the “traveling employee exception” to the going and coming rule found in Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed decisions of...

KY High Court: Injuries Sustained in Las Vegas Slip and Fall While Shopping are Compensable KY High Court: Injuries Sustained in Las Vegas Slip and Fall While Shopping are Compensable
Oct 21, 2024

Kansas Court Affirms Out-of-State Injury Compensable Under Kansas Comp Act

Last Friday, the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed a decision of the state’s Workers Compensation Board awarding additional benefits under the Kansas Workers’ Compensation Act to a nurse who moved...

Kansas Court Affirms Out-of-State Injury Compensable Under Kansas Comp Act Kansas Court Affirms Out-of-State Injury Compensable Under Kansas Comp Act

All Articles

ARCHIVE
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

  • 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...
  • kathlyn gorman: It should have been noted in your discussion that this is an unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Thus, it does not constitute controlling legal authority.
  • Thomas A. Robinson: You're correct. Ordinarily, I can depend upon Alabama to provide me with at least one case for "the List." I'll bet 2022 will unearth something bizarre from the Great State of Alabama. Take care.