Newest Articles

Oregon Jaywalker Might Be Awarded Benefits

Oregon Jaywalker Might Be Awarded Benefits Oregon Jaywalker Might Be Awarded Benefits
Case comment
Dec 30, 2024

NC Court of Appeals Reverses $28.9 Million Tort Judgment

Insurer Had No Duty to Defend Intentional Tort Claim Against Co-Employee In Ortez v. Penn Nat’l Sec. Ins. Co., 2024 N.C. App. LEXIS 1017 (Dec. 17, 2024), the North Carolina...

NC Court of Appeals Reverses $28.9 Million Tort Judgment NC Court of Appeals Reverses $28.9 Million Tort Judgment
Case comment
Dec 27, 2024

NY: Adverse Reaction to COVID Vaccination Not Compensable

Employer Encouraged, But Did Not Require Inoculation A New York appellate court has affirmed the state Workers’ Compensation Board’s denial of benefits to a healthcare worker who suffered adverse reactions...

NY: Adverse Reaction to COVID Vaccination Not Compensable NY: Adverse Reaction to COVID Vaccination Not Compensable
Case comment
Dec 20, 2024

PA Commonwealth Court Says No Credit Allowed for Pension Benefits Provided by Employer to Injured Retiree

In Bradford County v. Pasko, 323 A.3d 39 (Pa. Commw. 2024), the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court affirmed a Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board decision that denied an employer’s claimed offset against workers’...

PA Commonwealth Court Says No Credit Allowed for Pension Benefits Provided by Employer to Injured Retiree PA Commonwealth Court Says No Credit Allowed for Pension Benefits Provided by Employer to Injured Retiree
Issue commentary
Dec 18, 2024

Arkansas Court Reverses Permanent Benefits Award for COVID-Related Heart Condition

The Arkansas Court of Appeals has reversed a workers’ compensation award for permanent impairment related to atrial fibrillation that developed following a COVID-19 infection [Booneville Hum. Dev. Ctr. v. Foster,...

Arkansas Court Reverses Permanent Benefits Award for COVID-Related Heart Condition Arkansas Court Reverses Permanent Benefits Award for COVID-Related Heart Condition
Case comment

All Articles

CATEGORY
ARCHIVE
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
Aug 27, 2024

Alabama Court Applies Successive-Compensable-Injury Test to Non-Work-Related Accident

Alabama Court Applies Successive-Compensable-Injury Test to Non-Work-Related Accident Alabama Court Applies Successive-Compensable-Injury Test to Non-Work-Related Accident
Case comment
Aug 26, 2024

Utah Court Clarifies State’s Approach to Idiopathic Falls on Hard Surfaces

Utah Court Clarifies State’s Approach to Idiopathic Falls on Hard Surfaces Utah Court Clarifies State’s Approach to Idiopathic Falls on Hard Surfaces
Issue commentary
Aug 20, 2024

Virginia Court of Appeals Affirms Res Judicata Bar in Mileage Reimbursement Dispute

Virginia Court of Appeals Affirms Res Judicata Bar in Mileage Reimbursement Dispute Virginia Court of Appeals Affirms Res Judicata Bar in Mileage Reimbursement Dispute
Case comment
Aug 15, 2024

Connecticut Court Limits Reach of Res Judicata in Workers' Compensation Cases

Connecticut Court Limits Reach of Res Judicata in Workers' Compensation Cases Connecticut Court Limits Reach of Res Judicata in Workers' Compensation Cases
Case comment
Aug 13, 2024

Vermont Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Requirements for Workers' Compensation Claims

Vermont Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Requirements for Workers' Compensation Claims Vermont Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Requirements for Workers' Compensation Claims
Case comment
Aug 12, 2024

D.C. Court of Appeals Construes Employee Status Rules for “Intermittent” Worker

D.C. Court of Appeals Construes Employee Status Rules for “Intermittent” Worker D.C. Court of Appeals Construes Employee Status Rules for “Intermittent” Worker
Case comment
Jul 29, 2024

California Court Extends Commercial Traveler Rule to Remote Camp Worker

California Court Extends Commercial Traveler Rule to Remote Camp Worker California Court Extends Commercial Traveler Rule to Remote Camp Worker
Case comment
Jul 29, 2024

Alaska Supreme Court Narrows “Buddy” Exemption in Employer Status Determination

Alaska Supreme Court Narrows “Buddy” Exemption in Employer Status Determination Alaska Supreme Court Narrows “Buddy” Exemption in Employer Status Determination
Case comment
Jul 26, 2024

California Supreme Court Upholds Core of Proposition 22

California Supreme Court Upholds Core of Proposition 22 California Supreme Court Upholds Core of Proposition 22
Case comment
Jul 22, 2024

Illinois Court Reverses Denial of Benefits in Snow Shoveling Death Case

Illinois Court Reverses Denial of Benefits in Snow Shoveling Death Case Illinois Court Reverses Denial of Benefits in Snow Shoveling Death Case
Case comment
Jul 17, 2024

WA Court Upholds Suspension of Benefits for Refusal to Attend Telehealth IME

WA Court Upholds Suspension of Benefits for Refusal to Attend Telehealth IME WA Court Upholds Suspension of Benefits for Refusal to Attend Telehealth IME
Case comment
Jul 16, 2024

California Court Clarifies Burden of Proof for Subsequent Injuries Fund Credit

California Court Clarifies Burden of Proof for Subsequent Injuries Fund Credit California Court Clarifies Burden of Proof for Subsequent Injuries Fund Credit
Case comment

New Comments

  • 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
  • Thomas A. Robinson: Good point, although the interesting thing about the case--at least to me--is that it discusses the important "injury by accident" issue. That issue, present in at least a plurality of state acts, is largely ignored by Commissions, Boards, and Courts these days. Here, also, the case was so fact-specific that even it had been issued as published, it would be factually distinguishable from many othe...
  • kathlyn gorman: It should have been noted in your discussion that this is an unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Thus, it does not constitute controlling legal authority.
  • Thomas A. Robinson: You're correct. Ordinarily, I can depend upon Alabama to provide me with at least one case for "the List." I'll bet 2022 will unearth something bizarre from the Great State of Alabama. Take care.