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
Dec 8, 2025

DE Supreme Court: Recurrence Finding Bars Coverage Following Commutation

The Delaware Supreme Court recently affirmed a decision applying the recurrence versus aggravation framework in a case with an unusual result: because the claimant had commuted his earlier workers’ compensation...

DE Supreme Court: Recurrence Finding Bars Coverage Following Commutation DE Supreme Court: Recurrence Finding Bars Coverage Following Commutation
Dec 4, 2025

When Customer Confrontations Turn Violent, Workers’ Comp May Still Control

Georgia Court Applies Exclusive Remedy to Customer Assault Claim The Georgia Court of Appeals recently addressed an unsettling scenario: a cashier who alleged she was stabbed by a disgruntled drive-through...

When Customer Confrontations Turn Violent, Workers’ Comp May Still Control When Customer Confrontations Turn Violent, Workers’ Comp May Still Control
Dec 2, 2025

NY Court of Appeals Issues Two Major COVID-19 Decisions

On November 24, 2025, the New York Court of Appeals issued two decisions that clarify the standards governing workers’ compensation claims arising from COVID-19. In Matter of McLaurin v. New...

NY Court of Appeals Issues Two Major COVID-19 Decisions NY Court of Appeals Issues Two Major COVID-19 Decisions
Dec 1, 2025

Borrowing Doctrines Across Systems: Arkansas Reconsiders Travel, Tort Liability, and the Temptation of Workers’ Compensation Analogies

Skala v. Comfort Systems USA, Inc., 2025 Ark. 183, 2025 Ark. LEXIS 144 (Nov. 20, 2025), is one of those cases where the doctrinal lines between two distinct bodies of...

Borrowing Doctrines Across Systems: Arkansas Reconsiders Travel, Tort Liability, and the Temptation of Workers’ Compensation Analogies Borrowing Doctrines Across Systems: Arkansas Reconsiders Travel, Tort Liability, and the Temptation of Workers’ Compensation Analogies
Nov 24, 2025

NY Court Reaffirms Limits on Board’s Authority to Reject Uncontroverted Medical Testimony

New York’s Appellate Division, Third Department, has again emphasized an important constraint on the Workers’ Compensation Board’s fact-finding prerogative: while the Board may weigh competing medical opinions, it may not...

NY Court Reaffirms Limits on Board’s Authority to Reject Uncontroverted Medical Testimony NY Court Reaffirms Limits on Board’s Authority to Reject Uncontroverted Medical Testimony
Nov 21, 2025

Idaho High Court Affirms Denial of COVID-19 Death Benefits Claim

The Idaho Supreme Court recently affirmed denial of workers’ compensation death benefits to the widow of a county road equipment operator who died from COVID-19 complications in October 2021, holding...

Idaho High Court Affirms Denial of COVID-19 Death Benefits Claim Idaho High Court Affirms Denial of COVID-19 Death Benefits Claim
Nov 19, 2025

Washington Court Rejects Attempt to Reduce Social Security Offset Based on Attorney Fees

In an unpublished decision, the Washington Court of Appeals has affirmed that the Department of Labor and Industries is not required to account for a claimant’s attorney fees when calculating...

Washington Court Rejects Attempt to Reduce Social Security Offset Based on Attorney Fees Washington Court Rejects Attempt to Reduce Social Security Offset Based on Attorney Fees
Nov 18, 2025

NV Supreme Court: Special Occupational Lung Disease Statute Does Not Cover COVID-19 Claims

The Nevada Supreme Court has affirmed the denial of workers’ compensation benefits to a correctional officer who contracted COVID-19 from a coworker, holding that Nevada’s special occupational lung disease statute...

NV Supreme Court: Special Occupational Lung Disease Statute Does Not Cover COVID-19 Claims NV Supreme Court: Special Occupational Lung Disease Statute Does Not Cover COVID-19 Claims
Nov 17, 2025

NY Claimant’s Social Media Posts Undermine His Misrepresentation Defense

In Matter of Qureshi v. Rite Aid Corp., 2025 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6383 (3rd Dept. Nov. 13, 2025), a New York appellate court affirmed a decision by the state’s...

NY Claimant’s Social Media Posts Undermine His Misrepresentation Defense NY Claimant’s Social Media Posts Undermine His Misrepresentation Defense
Nov 14, 2025

Tort Plaintiff Relies on Comp Doctrine to Establish Employer Vicarious Liability

The Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, recently held that a tort plaintiff could rely on a workers’ compensation doctrine—the “special mission” exception to the going-and-coming rule—to establish an employer’s...

Tort Plaintiff Relies on Comp Doctrine to Establish Employer Vicarious Liability Tort Plaintiff Relies on Comp Doctrine to Establish Employer Vicarious Liability
Nov 13, 2025

FL Court: Misrepresentation Bar Limited to Specific Claim

In Pinellas County Transit Authority v. Jackson, 2025 Fla. App. LEXIS 8502 (1st DCA Nov. 12, 2025) a Florida appellate court held that the misrepresentation bar under § 440.105, Fla....

FL Court: Misrepresentation Bar Limited to Specific Claim FL Court: Misrepresentation Bar Limited to Specific Claim
Nov 11, 2025

Alabama Court Upholds 15 Percent Attorney Fee Cap in Comp Cases

The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals has rejected a constitutional challenge to Alabama’s statutory cap on claimant attorney fees, reaffirming the long-standing 15 per cent limitation in Ala. Code §...

Alabama Court Upholds 15 Percent Attorney Fee Cap in Comp Cases Alabama Court Upholds 15 Percent Attorney Fee Cap in Comp Cases

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