Newest Articles

Jun 5, 2025

Throwback Thursday: Boyd v. Young (1951)

When Cancer Meets Causation: Wrestling with Medical Mystery in 1951 In workers’ compensation law, few challenges prove more vexing than establishing causation when the medical community itself admits ignorance about...

Throwback Thursday: Boyd v. Young (1951) Throwback Thursday: Boyd v. Young (1951)
Jun 3, 2025

Iowa High Court Says Gross Negligence/Fraud Claims Can Go Forward Against Tyson Executives

In an important decision construing the Iowa doctrine that allows gross negligence and fraudulent misrepresentation tort claims against co-employees, the Iowa Supreme Court has revived claims against Tyson Foods executives...

Iowa High Court Says Gross Negligence/Fraud Claims Can Go Forward Against Tyson Executives Iowa High Court Says Gross Negligence/Fraud Claims Can Go Forward Against Tyson Executives
May 29, 2025

Throwback Thursday: Prows v. Industrial Commission of Utah (1980)

A Horseplay Case That Shaped Utah’s Workers’ Compensation Doctrine In Prows v. Industrial Commission of Utah, 610 P.2d 1362 (Utah 1980), the Supreme Court of Utah was presented with a...

Throwback Thursday: Prows v. Industrial Commission of Utah (1980) Throwback Thursday: Prows v. Industrial Commission of Utah (1980)
May 27, 2025

When the Boss Wears Two Hats

Exclusivity Does Not Shield Corporate Officers/Property Owners From Liability as Landlords In Nelson v. Smith, 2025 N.C. App. LEXIS 306 (May 21, 2025), the North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed...

When the Boss Wears Two Hats When the Boss Wears Two Hats

All Articles

ARCHIVE
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
Nov 30, 2022

New Site is Almost Finished

New Site is Almost Finished New Site is Almost Finished
Oct 27, 2022

Florida Supreme Court Settles Conflict Between Districts Regarding “Offer of Judgment” Rules

In a split decision, the Supreme Court of Florida reversed a decision by the state’s Second District Court of Appeal and held that where a plaintiff tenders a written offer...

Florida Supreme Court Settles Conflict Between Districts Regarding “Offer of Judgment” Rules Florida Supreme Court Settles Conflict Between Districts Regarding “Offer of Judgment” Rules
Oct 26, 2022

Florida’s Special Firefighter Cancer Statute Cannot Be Applied Retroactively

Florida’s special firefighter statute, § 112.1816, Fla. Stat., which provides previously unavailable benefits—a one-time payment of $25,000, and full coverage of the firefighter’s cancer treatment—to firefighters who meet certain criteria...

Florida’s Special Firefighter Cancer Statute Cannot Be Applied Retroactively Florida’s Special Firefighter Cancer Statute Cannot Be Applied Retroactively
Oct 25, 2022

FL Condo Association Was Statutory Employer of Valet Service Employee and Immune from Tort Liability

Because a condominium association had a contractual obligation to provide valet services to the condominium owners pursuant to the terms of the declaration of condominium, the association was the statutory...

FL Condo Association Was Statutory Employer of Valet Service Employee and Immune from Tort Liability FL Condo Association Was Statutory Employer of Valet Service Employee and Immune from Tort Liability
Oct 20, 2022

NM Court Limits Cannabis Reimbursement to Amount Set in Fee Schedule

In an unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed a decision by a state workers’ compensation judge that denied an injured worker’s request for full reimbursement of...

NM Court Limits Cannabis Reimbursement to Amount Set in Fee Schedule NM Court Limits Cannabis Reimbursement to Amount Set in Fee Schedule
Oct 18, 2022

Extension of Statute of Limitations in Ohio R. C. 4123.28 Does Not Apply to Death Claims

In a divided opinion, an Ohio appellate court affirmed a decision of a state trial court that granted summary judgment to an employer in a death benefits case that had...

Extension of Statute of Limitations in Ohio R. C. 4123.28 Does Not Apply to Death Claims Extension of Statute of Limitations in Ohio R. C. 4123.28 Does Not Apply to Death Claims
Oct 13, 2022

Bankruptcy Court Nixes WI Claimant’s Effort to Avoid Paying Med Providers

Where a Wisconsin worker settled a contested workers’ compensation claim with his employer and its insurer by means of a compromise settlement agreement that called for the payment of $120,000 to the claimant, $30,000....

Bankruptcy Court Nixes WI Claimant’s Effort to Avoid Paying Med Providers Bankruptcy Court Nixes WI Claimant’s Effort to Avoid Paying Med Providers

New Comments

  • 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
  • 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...