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
Nov 10, 2025

Delaware High Court Reaffirms Limits on Subrogation in UIM Awards

In ProAssurance Grp. v. Manz, 2025 Del. LEXIS 416 (Del. Nov. 7, 2025), the Delaware Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that workers’ compensation carriers’ subrogation rights against third-party recoveries extend only...

Delaware High Court Reaffirms Limits on Subrogation in UIM Awards Delaware High Court Reaffirms Limits on Subrogation in UIM Awards
Nov 7, 2025

Virginia Court Finds Dog Bite Compensable Under “Actual Risk” Doctrine

Utilizing what it calls the “actual risk” doctrine, the Virginia Court of Appeals recently affirmed a Workers’ Compensation Commission ruling that a camp employee’s dog bite injury arose out of...

Virginia Court Finds Dog Bite Compensable Under “Actual Risk” Doctrine Virginia Court Finds Dog Bite Compensable Under “Actual Risk” Doctrine
Nov 5, 2025

NY: Brief School Hallway Contact Insufficient to Prove COVID-19 Work Exposure

A school custodian’s limited contact with students passing through hallways while mopping did not constitute the sort of “elevated risk of exposure” necessary to establish a compensable COVID-19 claim, send...

NY: Brief School Hallway Contact Insufficient to Prove COVID-19 Work Exposure NY: Brief School Hallway Contact Insufficient to Prove COVID-19 Work Exposure
Nov 3, 2025

Iowa Court: Skin Grafts for Two Body Parts are Scheduled—Not Unscheduled Injury

A workplace injury requiring skin grafting from one body part to repair another doesn’t automatically become an unscheduled whole-body claim, the Iowa Court of Appeals held in Laguerre v. JBS...

Iowa Court: Skin Grafts for Two Body Parts are Scheduled—Not Unscheduled Injury Iowa Court: Skin Grafts for Two Body Parts are Scheduled—Not Unscheduled Injury
Oct 30, 2025

KY Supreme Court Affirms Denial of Benefits in COVID-19 Case

Skirts With Allowing Fault-Based Rule to Deny Claim In Estate of Perkins v. North American Stainless, 2025 Ky. LEXIS 221 (Oct. 23, 2025), the Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the denial...

KY Supreme Court Affirms Denial of Benefits in COVID-19 Case KY Supreme Court Affirms Denial of Benefits in COVID-19 Case
Oct 28, 2025

MN Supreme Court: Teacher’s Injury During Student Basketball Practice Compensable

The Minnesota Supreme Court, adopting language from Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 20.01 (“Larson”), affirmed that a middle school teacher’s knee injury sustained while playing basketball with students during an...

MN Supreme Court: Teacher’s Injury During Student Basketball Practice Compensable MN Supreme Court: Teacher’s Injury During Student Basketball Practice Compensable
Oct 27, 2025

PA Court Reverses PTSD Denial for Firefighter Who Performed CPR on Two Infants

Recently, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court reversed a Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board decision denying PTSD benefits to a firefighter, holding that performing CPR on two infants who died within a 16-month...

PA Court Reverses PTSD Denial for Firefighter Who Performed CPR on Two Infants PA Court Reverses PTSD Denial for Firefighter Who Performed CPR on Two Infants
Oct 24, 2025

Delaware Court Reverses Board Decision That Improperly Weighed Medical Opinion on Psychological Disability

The Delaware Superior Court reversed an Industrial Accident Board decision that denied recurrence benefits for psychological impairment, holding that the Board’s reliance on an orthopedic surgeon’s observations about psychological disorders—while...

Delaware Court Reverses Board Decision That Improperly Weighed Medical Opinion on Psychological Disability Delaware Court Reverses Board Decision That Improperly Weighed Medical Opinion on Psychological Disability
Oct 23, 2025

New Physician Panel Ordered after Doctor Terminates Care

In a recent decision, the Tennessee Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel affirmed an order requiring the employer to provide a new panel of physicians even though the employee had previously...

New Physician Panel Ordered after Doctor Terminates Care New Physician Panel Ordered after Doctor Terminates Care
Oct 21, 2025

NC Supreme Court: COVID-19 Emergency Act Does Not Support Immediate Appeal

In Land v. Whitley, 2025 N.C. LEXIS 868 (N.C. Oct. 17, 2025), the North Carolina Supreme Court held that a trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss based on...

NC Supreme Court: COVID-19 Emergency Act Does Not Support Immediate Appeal NC Supreme Court: COVID-19 Emergency Act Does Not Support Immediate Appeal
Oct 15, 2025

Virginia Court Affirms Retroactive Correction of Mistaken AWW

In Pittsylvania County School Board v. Hite, 2025 Va. App. LEXIS 607 (Va. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2025), the Virginia Court of Appeals upheld the Workers’ Compensation Commission’s authority to...

Virginia Court Affirms Retroactive Correction of Mistaken AWW Virginia Court Affirms Retroactive Correction of Mistaken AWW
Oct 14, 2025

IL Tort Action Against Employer Following Psychotic Attack by Coworker is Barred

In a divided decision, the Illinois Third District Appellate Court, affirming summary judgment by a state trial court, held that an employee’s civil action against his employer for injuries sustained...

IL Tort Action Against Employer Following Psychotic Attack by Coworker is Barred IL Tort Action Against Employer Following Psychotic Attack by Coworker is Barred

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