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
Apr 6, 2026

Ohio Supreme Court: R.C. 4123.56(F) Governs Summer TTD Claims of Nine-Month Employee

The Supreme Court of Ohio recently held that the Industrial Commission failed to properly apply R.C. 4123.56(F) when it awarded temporary total disability (TTD) compensation to an injured nine-month school...

Ohio Supreme Court: R.C. 4123.56(F) Governs Summer TTD Claims of Nine-Month Employee Ohio Supreme Court: R.C. 4123.56(F) Governs Summer TTD Claims of Nine-Month Employee
Apr 3, 2026

AL Supreme Court Bars Tort Claim Where Worker Accepted Comp Benefits

AL Supreme Court Bars Tort Claim Where Worker Accepted Comp Benefits In Duke v. Walmart, Inc., 2026 Ala. LEXIS 31 (Ala. Mar. 20, 2026), the Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed...

AL Supreme Court Bars Tort Claim Where Worker Accepted Comp Benefits AL Supreme Court Bars Tort Claim Where Worker Accepted Comp Benefits
Apr 2, 2026

Texas Court Affirms $4.5 Million Verdict for Worker Injured During “Try-Out” Period

Court Finds Jury Question on Contract Formation In Antonio Munoz Aserradero, LLC v. Thomas, 2026 Tex. App. LEXIS 2261 (Tex. App.—Tyler Mar. 11, 2026), the Court of Appeals of Texas,...

Texas Court Affirms $4.5 Million Verdict for Worker Injured During “Try-Out” Period Texas Court Affirms $4.5 Million Verdict for Worker Injured During “Try-Out” Period
Mar 31, 2026

PA Court: Medical Supplier Is Not a “Health Care Provider” Under State’s Act

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania recently held that Scomed Supply, a retail seller of medical supplies, is not a “health care provider” as defined by Section 109 of the Pennsylvania...

PA Court: Medical Supplier Is Not a “Health Care Provider” Under State’s Act PA Court: Medical Supplier Is Not a “Health Care Provider” Under State’s Act
Mar 27, 2026

PA Sole Proprietor Need Not Notify Insurer Within 120 Days Under Section 311

State’s Highest Court Reverses Lower Court’s Ruling A sole proprietor need not notify his workers’ compensation insurer within 120 days of injury to preserve a claim under Section 311 of...

PA Sole Proprietor Need Not Notify Insurer Within 120 Days Under Section 311 PA Sole Proprietor Need Not Notify Insurer Within 120 Days Under Section 311
Mar 24, 2026

Issue Commentary: Counting Heads or Counting Employees?

The Statutory Employee Problem in Numerical-Minimum Cases A recent Virginia decision raises a question that courts applying workers’ compensation numerical-minimum statutes have rarely paused to examine: when subcontractor workers are...

Issue Commentary: Counting Heads or Counting Employees? Issue Commentary: Counting Heads or Counting Employees?
Mar 23, 2026

Issue Commentary: Take-Home Asbestos and the Reach of Exclusivity

The Supreme Court of Kentucky has affirmed a finding by the state’s Court of Appeals that summary judgment was improper in a negligence and products-liability action alleging mesothelioma caused by...

Issue Commentary: Take-Home Asbestos and the Reach of Exclusivity Issue Commentary: Take-Home Asbestos and the Reach of Exclusivity
Mar 17, 2026

Up-the-Ladder Immunity Runs Only One Direction

Federal Court in Kentucky Says Common Carrier’s Defense Fails A federal court applying Kentucky workers’ compensation law recently rejected a motor carrier’s claim that it was entitled to up-the-ladder immunity...

Up-the-Ladder Immunity Runs Only One Direction Up-the-Ladder Immunity Runs Only One Direction
Mar 16, 2026

Federal Court (E.D. Ky.) Rejects Workers’ Comp Retaliation Claim Despite Sympathetic Facts

In Spade v. Appalachian Regional Healthcare, Inc., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49799 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 11, 2026), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky granted summary...

Federal Court (E.D. Ky.) Rejects Workers’ Comp Retaliation Claim Despite Sympathetic Facts Federal Court (E.D. Ky.) Rejects Workers’ Comp Retaliation Claim Despite Sympathetic Facts
Mar 12, 2026

Virginia Court Counts Subcontractor Workers in Coverage Threshold Case

Small contractors sometimes believe that keeping their payroll lean — two employees instead of three — will keep them outside the reach of the workers’ compensation statute. But the Virginia...

Virginia Court Counts Subcontractor Workers in Coverage Threshold Case Virginia Court Counts Subcontractor Workers in Coverage Threshold Case
Mar 10, 2026

Second Circuit Bars Medical Marijuana Reimbursement Under the Longshore Act

In Garcia v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 6549 (2d Cir. Mar. 5, 2026), the Second Circuit denied a petition for review filed by a...

Second Circuit Bars Medical Marijuana Reimbursement Under the Longshore Act Second Circuit Bars Medical Marijuana Reimbursement Under the Longshore Act
Mar 6, 2026

New York’s Hidden Cost Problem: WCRI Examines the Price of Delivering Benefits

Every dollar spent on workers’ compensation falls into one of two broad categories: benefits paid to injured workers—medical care and wage replacement—and the costs of delivering those benefits. The second...

New York’s Hidden Cost Problem: WCRI Examines the Price of Delivering Benefits New York’s Hidden Cost Problem: WCRI Examines the Price of Delivering Benefits

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