Newest Articles

Jun 5, 2026

Iowa Supreme Court: Employer Not Bound by Opinion of Its Own Treating Physician

Many disputes over physician choice in workers’ compensation arise when an injured worker seeks treatment from a doctor of his or her own choosing. Hayes v. Christian Retirement Homes, Inc.,...

Iowa Supreme Court: Employer Not Bound by Opinion of Its Own Treating Physician Iowa Supreme Court: Employer Not Bound by Opinion of Its Own Treating Physician
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

All Articles

ARCHIVE
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
Jul 8, 2021

PA Court Says Janitor’s Fall Near Entrance of Building is Compensable

A Pennsylvania appellate court reversed a decision of a state workers’ compensation judge, affirmed by the state’s Board, that had denied workers’ compensation benefits to a janitor who sustained injuries...

PA Court Says Janitor’s Fall Near Entrance of Building is Compensable PA Court Says Janitor’s Fall Near Entrance of Building is Compensable
Jul 1, 2021

Illinois Court Stresses that Both Loaning and Borrowing Employers are Immune From Tort Liability

In an Illinois personal injury action filed by a temporary worker who had been assigned by a temporary staffing agency to a packaging company, both the “loaning” employer and the...

Illinois Court Stresses that Both Loaning and Borrowing Employers are Immune From Tort Liability Illinois Court Stresses that Both Loaning and Borrowing Employers are Immune From Tort Liability
Jun 29, 2021

NY Worker’s Claim Denied Where He Died Before Record Could be Established

A New York appellate court affirmed a decision by the state’s Workers’ Compensation Board that disallowed the claim of an employee who sought workers’ compensation benefits approximately one month after...

NY Worker’s Claim Denied Where He Died Before Record Could be Established NY Worker’s Claim Denied Where He Died Before Record Could be Established
Jun 28, 2021

“Roll the Video”: Surveillance Footage Supports NY Board’s Finding That Claimant Misrepresented Material Fact

A New York appellate court held that substantial evidence supported a decision by the state’s Workers’ Compensation Board disqualifying a workers’ compensation claimant from further benefits, based upon his misrepresentation...

“Roll the Video”: Surveillance Footage Supports NY Board’s Finding That Claimant Misrepresented Material Fact “Roll the Video”: Surveillance Footage Supports NY Board’s Finding That Claimant Misrepresented Material Fact
Jun 25, 2021

Self-Employed SC Roofer May Have Been Roofing Co.’s Employee

The Court of Appeals of South Carolina reversed, in part, a decision by the state’s Workers’ Compensation Appellate Panel that had found an injured roofer was an independent contractor—and not...

Self-Employed SC Roofer May Have Been Roofing Co.’s Employee Self-Employed SC Roofer May Have Been Roofing Co.’s Employee
Jun 24, 2021

MS Court Affirms Denial of Quadriplegic’s Settlement Agreement

A Mississippi appellate court affirmed a decision by the state’s Workers’ Compensation Commission that denied—without a hearing—an injured worker’s petition to settle and close out the medical portion of his...

MS Court Affirms Denial of Quadriplegic’s Settlement Agreement MS Court Affirms Denial of Quadriplegic’s Settlement Agreement
Jun 22, 2021

Colorado Hospital’s Action in Billing Claimant for Medical Services Warranted Penalty, But Not as a “Continuing” Offense

A Colorado appellate court affirmed the imposition of a $750 penalty for each of eight instances in which a hospital sent invoices to a worker who had sustained work-related injuries...

Colorado Hospital’s Action in Billing Claimant for Medical Services Warranted Penalty, But Not as a “Continuing” Offense Colorado Hospital’s Action in Billing Claimant for Medical Services Warranted Penalty, But Not as a “Continuing” Offense
Jun 21, 2021

NY Law Firm’s $52K Fee Request Will be Reconsidered by Board

In a relatively unusual move, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York (Third Department) vacated its October 8, 2020 decision [reported at 187 A.D.3d 1297, 132 N.Y.S.3d...

NY Law Firm’s $52K Fee Request Will be Reconsidered by Board NY Law Firm’s $52K Fee Request Will be Reconsidered by Board
Jun 17, 2021

NY Grave Digger’s Intentional Distress Claim Fails

A New York appellate court affirmed a trial court’s order granting an employer’s motion for summary judgment in a case in which a former employee—a grave digger—contended he had sustained...

NY Grave Digger’s Intentional Distress Claim Fails NY Grave Digger’s Intentional Distress Claim Fails
Jun 16, 2021

NY Court Examines Applicability of Back-Dated Indemnification Agreement

A New York appellate court affirmed a trial court’s decision denying that portion of an employer/third-party defendant’s motion seeking dismissal of a contractual indemnification claim filed against it by a...

NY Court Examines Applicability of Back-Dated Indemnification Agreement NY Court Examines Applicability of Back-Dated Indemnification Agreement
Jun 15, 2021

NY Jury Must Consider Whether Defendant was Special Employee Entitled to Exclusive Remedy Defense

A New York appellate court affirmed a trial court’s determination that there were issues of fact as to whether a defendant was the special employee of plaintiff’s employer so as...

NY Jury Must Consider Whether Defendant was Special Employee Entitled to Exclusive Remedy Defense NY Jury Must Consider Whether Defendant was Special Employee Entitled to Exclusive Remedy Defense
Jun 10, 2021

Action Filed Under NJ’s Discrimination Law Not Barred by Exclusive Remedy Rule

The Supreme Court of New Jersey, examining the intersection between the state’s Worker’s Compensation Act (WCA) and its Law Against Discrimination (LAD), held that a teacher’s LAD claim alleging that...

Action Filed Under NJ’s Discrimination Law Not Barred by Exclusive Remedy Rule Action Filed Under NJ’s Discrimination Law Not Barred by Exclusive Remedy Rule

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