Newest Articles

Jul 21, 2026

Utah High Court: Suspension, Not Dismissal, Is the Only Sanction for Obstructing an IME

Statute’s Specific Remedy Overrides Rule 37 Discovery Sanctions, Even After Three Failed Medical Exams The Supreme Court of Utah has held that dismissal is not an available sanction for a...

Utah High Court: Suspension, Not Dismissal, Is the Only Sanction for Obstructing an IME Utah High Court: Suspension, Not Dismissal, Is the Only Sanction for Obstructing an IME
Jul 16, 2026

Personal Comfort Doctrine Reaches a Formal, Unpaid Break

PA Court Finds a 15-Minute Break’s Brevity Outweighs Its Formality The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania recently affirmed an award of workers’ compensation benefits to a pharmacy technician struck by a...

Personal Comfort Doctrine Reaches a Formal, Unpaid Break Personal Comfort Doctrine Reaches a Formal, Unpaid Break
Jul 14, 2026

Trucker’s Retaliation Claim Runs Aground in His Own Hay Field

Idaho Federal Court Finds Surveillance and a Full-Duty Release Defeat Workers' Comp Retaliatory Discharge Claim The U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho recently granted summary judgment for a...

Trucker’s Retaliation Claim Runs Aground in His Own Hay Field Trucker’s Retaliation Claim Runs Aground in His Own Hay Field
Jul 13, 2026

FL High Court Rejects Motive Requirement for Workplace Assault Claims

Risk-Exposure Evidence Alone Can Establish the Causal Link, Justices Hold Last Thursday, In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Muñiz, the Supreme Court of Florida held that a workplace assault...

FL High Court Rejects Motive Requirement for Workplace Assault Claims FL High Court Rejects Motive Requirement for Workplace Assault Claims

All Articles

ARCHIVE
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
Sep 2, 2021

Va. Employee’s Injuries Sustained While Moving Under Descending Door Are Compensable

In an opinion not designated for publication, the Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed an award of workers’ compensation benefits to an employee of an auto dealership who sustained injuries...

Va. Employee’s Injuries Sustained While Moving Under Descending Door Are Compensable Va. Employee’s Injuries Sustained While Moving Under Descending Door Are Compensable
Sep 1, 2021

KY Supreme Court Says Statute Terminating Income Benefits at Age 70 is Constitutional

The Kentucky Supreme Court held the 2018 amendment to Ky. Rev. Stat. 342.730(4), which terminates workers’ compensation income benefits when the recipient reaches the age of 70 or four years...

KY Supreme Court Says Statute Terminating Income Benefits at Age 70 is Constitutional KY Supreme Court Says Statute Terminating Income Benefits at Age 70 is Constitutional
Aug 30, 2021

GA Worker’s Subsequent Fall at Home Was an Intervening Cause of Current Condition

A Georgia appellate court found that a state superior court erred when it reversed the State Board of Workers’ Compensation’s determination that an injured worker had recovered from a work-related...

GA Worker’s Subsequent Fall at Home Was an Intervening Cause of Current Condition GA Worker’s Subsequent Fall at Home Was an Intervening Cause of Current Condition
Aug 26, 2021

Delaware Board Must Decide if COVID-Related Claim is Compensable

The Superior Court of Delaware (New Castle) held that the issue of whether an employee’s fatal COVID-19 infection was an injury or occupational disease must be determined by the state’s...

Delaware Board Must Decide if COVID-Related Claim is Compensable Delaware Board Must Decide if COVID-Related Claim is Compensable
Aug 24, 2021

Oregon Employee Recovers Benefits Following Explosion of Energy Drink

In a case with a rather bizarre fact pattern, an Oregon appellate court affirmed a decision by the state’s Workers’ Compensation Board that awarded benefits to a painter who sustained...

Oregon Employee Recovers Benefits Following Explosion of Energy Drink Oregon Employee Recovers Benefits Following Explosion of Energy Drink
Aug 23, 2021

SD Worker’s Letter Asking for “Review of Benefits” Was Inadequate to Toll Limitations Statute

Acknowledging the relative informality within the South Dakota workers’ compensation laws as well as the public policy that the state’s Workers’ Compensation Act and its rules should be construed liberally...

SD Worker’s Letter Asking for “Review of Benefits” Was Inadequate to Toll Limitations Statute SD Worker’s Letter Asking for “Review of Benefits” Was Inadequate to Toll Limitations Statute
Aug 19, 2021

MN High Court Says Injured Worker Failed to Establish Exception Allowing Long-Term Opioid Use

In a carefully crafted decision dealing with a chronic problem both within and without the workers’ compensation world—long-term opioid use—the Supreme Court of Minnesota held an injured workers treatment with...

MN High Court Says Injured Worker Failed to Establish Exception Allowing Long-Term Opioid Use MN High Court Says Injured Worker Failed to Establish Exception Allowing Long-Term Opioid Use
Aug 17, 2021

Delaware Worker’s Running in Workplace Bars Claim for Injuries

Construing 19 Del. C. § 2353(b), which bars an employee’s right to compensation for an injury if the injury results, inter alia, from “the employee’s deliberate and reckless indifference to...

Delaware Worker’s Running in Workplace Bars Claim for Injuries Delaware Worker’s Running in Workplace Bars Claim for Injuries
Aug 9, 2021

Utah IME Physician May Not Be Sued by Workers’ Comp Claimant

Finding that a physician-patient relationship did not exist between a doctor hired by the workers’ compensation carrier to perform an independent medical examination of the claimant, the Supreme Court of...

Utah IME Physician May Not Be Sued by Workers’ Comp Claimant Utah IME Physician May Not Be Sued by Workers’ Comp Claimant
Aug 5, 2021

Half of Virginia Claimant’s PPD Apportioned to Pre-Existing Condition

In a decision not designated for publication, a Virginia appellate court affirmed a finding of the state’s Workers’ Compensation Commission that an injured employee’s work-related accident had caused only a...

Half of Virginia Claimant’s PPD Apportioned to Pre-Existing Condition Half of Virginia Claimant’s PPD Apportioned to Pre-Existing Condition
Jul 29, 2021

Virginia Claimant Did Not Violate Known Safety Rule in Connection with Injury

Construing Virginia’s intentional violation of a known safety rule statute [Va. Code § 65.2-306(A)], a state appellate court affirmed an award of workers’ compensation benefits to an employee who sustained...

Virginia Claimant Did Not Violate Known Safety Rule in Connection with Injury Virginia Claimant Did Not Violate Known Safety Rule in Connection with Injury
Jul 27, 2021

NY Court Agrees Claimant’s Injuries Occurred Within “Gray Area” of Employment

Reiterating New York’s special “gray area” rule, pursuant to which injuries sustained in public areas near the employment—but not on the employer’s premises—are nevertheless compensable where the risks of street...

NY Court Agrees Claimant’s Injuries Occurred Within “Gray Area” of Employment NY Court Agrees Claimant’s Injuries Occurred Within “Gray Area” of Employment

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