Newest Articles

Jun 2, 2026

Maine Supreme Court: Massachusetts Law Strips Staffing Client of Workers’ Compensation Immunity

Court Applies Massachusetts Law to Maine Injury, Rejects Immunity Defense in Multi-State Staffing Arrangement A New Hampshire contractor that likely would have enjoyed workers’ compensation immunity under Maine law lost...

Maine Supreme Court: Massachusetts Law Strips Staffing Client of Workers’ Compensation Immunity Maine Supreme Court: Massachusetts Law Strips Staffing Client of Workers’ Compensation Immunity
Jun 1, 2026

NY High Court Holds JIWA Bars Collateral Estoppel Effect of Pre-Enactment Workers’ Comp Decisions

New York’s Court of Appeals recently affirmed an Appellate Division order blocking defendants in a personal injury action from using a Workers’ Compensation Board causation determination as collateral estoppel, holding...

NY High Court Holds JIWA Bars Collateral Estoppel Effect of Pre-Enactment Workers’ Comp Decisions NY High Court Holds JIWA Bars Collateral Estoppel Effect of Pre-Enactment Workers’ Comp Decisions
May 27, 2026

Nebraska Supreme Court Affirms Denial of Death Benefits Where Work Injury Delayed Cancer Treatment

In a case involving a Nebraska truck driver-farm laborer whose treatment for metastatic cancer was allegedly postponed by complications associated with a compensable hip injury and its resulting treatment, the...

Nebraska Supreme Court Affirms Denial of Death Benefits Where Work Injury Delayed Cancer Treatment Nebraska Supreme Court Affirms Denial of Death Benefits Where Work Injury Delayed Cancer Treatment
May 26, 2026

NC Court of Appeals: Exclusivity Doctrine Bars Negligence Suit Following Workplace Stroke

A North Carolina district manager who suffered a stroke while preparing for the opening of a restaurant location—and who allegedly waited hours before coworkers summoned emergency assistance—may not pursue negligence...

NC Court of Appeals: Exclusivity Doctrine Bars Negligence Suit Following Workplace Stroke NC Court of Appeals: Exclusivity Doctrine Bars Negligence Suit Following Workplace Stroke

All Articles

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