Newest Articles

Iowa Court Affirms Denial of Benefits re: COVID-19 Claim

Iowa Court Affirms Denial of Benefits re: COVID-19 Claim Iowa Court Affirms Denial of Benefits re: COVID-19 Claim
Case comment
Jan 6, 2025

Nebraska COVID-19 Claim Fails For Want of Expert Medical Evidence

In Spisa-Kline v. Mary Lanning Memorial Hospital, 2024 Neb. App. LEXIS 750 (Dec. 31, 2024), the Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the employer in a workers’ compensation...

Nebraska COVID-19 Claim Fails For Want of Expert Medical Evidence Nebraska COVID-19 Claim Fails For Want of Expert Medical Evidence
Case comment
Dec 31, 2024

Oregon Jaywalker Might Be Awarded Benefits

Appeals Court Examines Going and Coming Rule The Oregon Court of Appeals has reversed and remanded a Workers’ Compensation Board decision that had denied benefits to a worker injured while...

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

All Articles

CATEGORY
ARCHIVE
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
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
Jul 15, 2024

Florida Court Reverses Reduction of Workers’ Comp Lien in Third-Party Settlement

Florida Court Reverses Reduction of Workers’ Comp Lien in Third-Party Settlement Florida Court Reverses Reduction of Workers’ Comp Lien in Third-Party Settlement
Case comment
Jul 10, 2024

Virginia Court Construes “Heart Disease” Definition for Firefighters

Virginia Court Construes “Heart Disease” Definition for Firefighters Virginia Court Construes “Heart Disease” Definition for Firefighters
Case comment
Jul 9, 2024

Nebraska High Court Clarifies Employer’s Duty to Pay Some Benefits When Disability is Undisputed

Nebraska High Court Clarifies Employer’s Duty to Pay Some Benefits When Disability is Undisputed Nebraska High Court Clarifies Employer’s Duty to Pay Some Benefits When Disability is Undisputed
Case comment
Jul 8, 2024

Tort Action Against NC Employer re: After-Hours Assault by Co-Employee May Proceed

Tort Action Against NC Employer re: After-Hours Assault by Co-Employee May Proceed Tort Action Against NC Employer re: After-Hours Assault by Co-Employee May Proceed
Case comment
Jun 27, 2024

Delaware Supreme Court Says COVID-19 Not Occupational Disease for Poultry Worker

Delaware Supreme Court Says COVID-19 Not Occupational Disease for Poultry Worker Delaware Supreme Court Says COVID-19 Not Occupational Disease for Poultry Worker
Case comment
Jun 24, 2024

Ladder Safety “Feet” Are Not “Equipment Safety Guard” Under Ohio’s Intentional Tort Statute

Ladder Safety “Feet” Are Not “Equipment Safety Guard” Under Ohio’s Intentional Tort Statute Ladder Safety “Feet” Are Not “Equipment Safety Guard” Under Ohio’s Intentional Tort Statute
Case comment
Jun 20, 2024

NY Board Erred in Denying Review of COVID Claim Because Claimant Used Old RB-89 Form

NY Board Erred in Denying Review of COVID Claim Because Claimant Used Old RB-89 Form NY Board Erred in Denying Review of COVID Claim Because Claimant Used Old RB-89 Form
Case comment
Jun 19, 2024

9th Circuit: California’s Differential Treatment of App-Based Transportation and Delivery Companies Survives Rational Basis Review

9th Circuit: California’s Differential Treatment of App-Based Transportation and Delivery Companies Survives Rational Basis Review 9th Circuit: California’s Differential Treatment of App-Based Transportation and Delivery Companies Survives Rational Basis Review
Case comment
Jun 18, 2024

California Court Revives Widow’s COVID-19 Suit Against Husband’s Employer

California Court Revives Widow’s COVID-19 Suit Against Husband’s Employer California Court Revives Widow’s COVID-19 Suit Against Husband’s Employer
Case comment
Jun 17, 2024

Florida Court Reverses AWW Calculation for Minor League Baseball Player

Florida Court Reverses AWW Calculation for Minor League Baseball Player Florida Court Reverses AWW Calculation for Minor League Baseball Player
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.