Newest Articles

Jun 8, 2026

South Carolina’s Mental-Injury Paradox

A South Carolina employee alleged that his manager threatened him, accused him of dishonesty, called the police, suspended him, and ultimately fired him. He then sued his employer for negligent...

South Carolina’s Mental-Injury Paradox South Carolina’s Mental-Injury Paradox
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

All Articles

ARCHIVE
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
Jan 26, 2021

Iowa Employee’s Tort Action Against Co-Employees Alleging Gross Negligence Fails

Construing Iowa's special co-employee immunity statute [Iowa Code § 85.20(2)], pursuant to which a coemployee is not immune from tort liability if his or her gross negligence causes injury to...

Iowa Employee’s Tort Action Against Co-Employees Alleging Gross Negligence Fails Iowa Employee’s Tort Action Against Co-Employees Alleging Gross Negligence Fails
Jan 25, 2021

Opinion Mondays: Proximity in Time Between Injury and Firing is Not Always Sufficient to Establish Prima Facie Retaliatory Discharge Claim

While proximity of time between an employee’s injury and her firing is generally sufficient to make out a prima facie case for retaliatory discharge, a recent federal district court decision...

Opinion Mondays: Proximity in Time Between Injury and Firing is Not Always Sufficient to Establish Prima Facie Retaliatory Discharge Claim Opinion Mondays: Proximity in Time Between Injury and Firing is Not Always Sufficient to Establish Prima Facie Retaliatory Discharge Claim
Jan 21, 2021

California Supreme Court Says Dynamex Should be Applied Retroactively

In Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc., 2021 Cal. LEXIS 1 (Jan. 14, 2021), the Supreme Court of California held its earlier Dynamex decision [Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior...

California Supreme Court Says Dynamex Should be Applied Retroactively California Supreme Court Says Dynamex Should be Applied Retroactively
Jan 20, 2021

MS Court Reiterates Claimant May Qualify for PPD Benefits in Spite of Increased Earnings

The Court of Appeals of Mississippi affirmed a decision of the state's Workers' Compensation Commission that found an injured worker was entitled to PPD benefits of $81.38 per week for...

MS Court Reiterates Claimant May Qualify for PPD Benefits in Spite of Increased Earnings MS Court Reiterates Claimant May Qualify for PPD Benefits in Spite of Increased Earnings
Jan 19, 2021

Ohio Court Appropriately Instructs Jury on “Eggshell Head” Theory of Liability

An Ohio appellate court affirmed a verdict entered by a trial court on a jury verdict finding an injured employee was entitled to participate in the benefits provided under the...

Ohio Court Appropriately Instructs Jury on “Eggshell Head” Theory of Liability Ohio Court Appropriately Instructs Jury on “Eggshell Head” Theory of Liability
Jan 14, 2021

Federal Court (Cal.) Says Tort Claim Alleging Unsafe COVID-19 Conditions is Barred by Exclusivity Rule

A federal district court, sitting in California, granted–in relevant part–an employer’s motion to dismiss two causes of action alleging negligent supervision and intentional infliction of emotional distress filed by a...

Federal Court (Cal.) Says Tort Claim Alleging Unsafe COVID-19 Conditions is Barred by Exclusivity Rule Federal Court (Cal.) Says Tort Claim Alleging Unsafe COVID-19 Conditions is Barred by Exclusivity Rule
Jan 12, 2021

Kansas Supreme Court Says Use of 6th Edition of AMA Guides is Constitutional

In a much anticipated decision, the Supreme Court of Kansas reversed an August 2018 decision of the state's Court of Appeals that had struck down as unconstitutional the use of...

Kansas Supreme Court Says Use of 6th Edition of AMA Guides is Constitutional Kansas Supreme Court Says Use of 6th Edition of AMA Guides is Constitutional
Jan 11, 2021

The Top 10 Bizarre Workers’ Comp Cases for 2020

As I have noted many times on this blog site and elsewhere, more than 30 years ago my mentor, Dr. Arthur Larson, and I began a quirky—though humorous—New Year’s tradition....

The Top 10 Bizarre Workers’ Comp Cases for 2020 The Top 10 Bizarre Workers’ Comp Cases for 2020
Jan 7, 2021

Sunday Doesn’t Count for PA’s 120-day Notice to Employer Even if It’s Open for Business

The 120-day period for providing notice of injury to the employer found in Section 311 of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act [77 P.S. §631] is, as are all time frames...

Sunday Doesn’t Count for PA’s 120-day Notice to Employer Even if It’s Open for Business Sunday Doesn’t Count for PA’s 120-day Notice to Employer Even if It’s Open for Business
Jan 4, 2021

NV High Court Reiterates That Undocumented Workers May Recover Indemnity Benefits

The Supreme Court of Nevada reiterated that the state’s workers’ compensation statutes clearly and unambiguously protected every person in the service of an employer, whether lawfully or unlawfully employed, including...

NV High Court Reiterates That Undocumented Workers May Recover Indemnity Benefits NV High Court Reiterates That Undocumented Workers May Recover Indemnity Benefits
Dec 28, 2020

Opinion Mondays: Do Employers Face Additional Liability for COVID-19 Vaccination Side Effects?

Several weeks ago, an attorney friend called for some advice. One of his clients had asked if the client’s business might face additional liability if–once the COVID-19 vaccines are generally...

Opinion Mondays: Do Employers Face Additional Liability for COVID-19 Vaccination Side Effects? Opinion Mondays: Do Employers Face Additional Liability for COVID-19 Vaccination Side Effects?
Dec 23, 2020

Deceased Employee’s Heirs May Not Maintain Tort Action Against Mississippi Employer Following Training Exercise Shooting

Evidence that a highly trained firearms instructor failed to observe known safety rules, resulting in the fatal shooting of a co-employee in a training exercise, while tragic, was not enough...

Deceased Employee’s Heirs May Not Maintain Tort Action Against Mississippi Employer Following Training Exercise Shooting Deceased Employee’s Heirs May Not Maintain Tort Action Against Mississippi Employer Following Training Exercise Shooting

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