Newest Articles

Mar 10, 2026

Second Circuit Bars Medical Marijuana Reimbursement Under the Longshore Act

In Garcia v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 6549 (2d Cir. Mar. 5, 2026), the Second Circuit denied a petition for review filed by a...

Second Circuit Bars Medical Marijuana Reimbursement Under the Longshore Act Second Circuit Bars Medical Marijuana Reimbursement Under the Longshore Act
Mar 6, 2026

New York’s Hidden Cost Problem: WCRI Examines the Price of Delivering Benefits

Every dollar spent on workers’ compensation falls into one of two broad categories: benefits paid to injured workers—medical care and wage replacement—and the costs of delivering those benefits. The second...

New York’s Hidden Cost Problem: WCRI Examines the Price of Delivering Benefits New York’s Hidden Cost Problem: WCRI Examines the Price of Delivering Benefits
Mar 5, 2026

Delaware Supreme Court Reinstates IAB’s Denial of Sole Proprietor Coverage

In Motors v. Bayly (Red House Motors d/b/a Bayly’s Garage), 2026 Del. LEXIS 92 (Mar. 2, 2026), the Delaware Supreme Court reversed a Superior Court decision that the high court...

Delaware Supreme Court Reinstates IAB’s Denial of Sole Proprietor Coverage Delaware Supreme Court Reinstates IAB’s Denial of Sole Proprietor Coverage
Mar 3, 2026

Florida Court Invalidates Rules Expanding “Absolute Choice” Pharmacy Provision

In Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Department of Financial Services, 2026 Fla. App. LEXIS 1469 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb. 25, 2026), the First District Court of Appeal recently held that...

Florida Court Invalidates Rules Expanding “Absolute Choice” Pharmacy Provision Florida Court Invalidates Rules Expanding “Absolute Choice” Pharmacy Provision

All Articles

ARCHIVE
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
Feb 7, 2020

NY Court Affirms Board’s Reduction of Attorney Fee to 45 Percent of Amount Requested

Yesterday, a New York appellate court affirmed a decision by a panel of the state’s Workers’ Compensation Board that set counsel fees for the claimant’s attorney at $8,000, instead of...

NY Court Affirms Board’s Reduction of Attorney Fee to 45 Percent of Amount Requested NY Court Affirms Board’s Reduction of Attorney Fee to 45 Percent of Amount Requested
Feb 6, 2020

No Apportionment For NY Claimant’s Preexisting Cancer In Spite of Medical Evidence

In spite of medical evidence that indicated an injured employee’s disability should be equally apportioned between his noncompensable lung cancer condition and a subsequent work-related injury to his right shoulder...

No Apportionment For NY Claimant’s Preexisting Cancer In Spite of Medical Evidence No Apportionment For NY Claimant’s Preexisting Cancer In Spite of Medical Evidence
Feb 5, 2020

Maryland Employer’s Subrogation Interest Does Not Extend to Employee’s Medical Malpractice Settlement

Where an employer paid for medical services exclusively to treat the compensable injury, but not to treat any additional harm from medical negligence, the employer had no subrogation interest in...

Maryland Employer’s Subrogation Interest Does Not Extend to Employee’s Medical Malpractice Settlement Maryland Employer’s Subrogation Interest Does Not Extend to Employee’s Medical Malpractice Settlement
Feb 4, 2020

NH Supreme Court Panel Reverses Board’s Denial in Unexplained Fall Case

A panel of the New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed a finding of the state’s Compensation Appeals Board (CAB) denying a claim by an elementary school speech assistant who sustained a...

NH Supreme Court Panel Reverses Board’s Denial in Unexplained Fall Case NH Supreme Court Panel Reverses Board’s Denial in Unexplained Fall Case
Feb 3, 2020

Super Bowl Monday Special: PA Court Says NFL Player Was Not “Seasonal” Employee

With a tip of the hat to those of you who reported to the office today — according to a recent research article by Joyce Maroney, Executive Director of the...

Super Bowl Monday Special: PA Court Says NFL Player Was Not “Seasonal” Employee Super Bowl Monday Special: PA Court Says NFL Player Was Not “Seasonal” Employee
Jan 31, 2020

Washington Claimant May Not Recover for PTSD as an Occupational Disease

A Washington appellate court affirmed a finding by the state’s Department of Labor and Industries (”the Department”) that an employee could not prevail in her occupational disease claim for post-traumatic...

Washington Claimant May Not Recover for PTSD as an Occupational Disease Washington Claimant May Not Recover for PTSD as an Occupational Disease
Jan 30, 2020

No Apportionment of Fault Allowed against Arkansas Employer

Yesterday, an Arkansas appellate court affirmed a finding by a county circuit court that held the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, as amended and codified at Ark. Code Ann. §§...

No Apportionment of Fault Allowed against Arkansas Employer No Apportionment of Fault Allowed against Arkansas Employer
Jan 29, 2020

General Liability Insurer Must Defend In Spite of Fact That Injury Occurred at Workplace

In True North Me. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13941 (Jan. 28, 2020), a federal district court sitting in Maine applied the so-called “comparison test” —...

General Liability Insurer Must Defend In Spite of Fact That Injury Occurred at Workplace General Liability Insurer Must Defend In Spite of Fact That Injury Occurred at Workplace
Jan 28, 2020

Surreptitious Recording Reveals Firing Was Connected to Comp Claim and Not Immigration Status

Yesterday, a federal district court held that a Tennessee employer had violated state employment law regarding retaliatory discharge where the employee in question was fired within one hour of the...

Surreptitious Recording Reveals Firing Was Connected to Comp Claim and Not Immigration Status Surreptitious Recording Reveals Firing Was Connected to Comp Claim and Not Immigration Status
Jan 27, 2020

IL Supreme Court: Workers’ Compensation Settlement Proceeds Are Beyond Reach of Health Care Providers Who Treated the Worker

Last Friday, answering a question certified to it by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the Supreme Court of Illinois held that under section 21 of the...

IL Supreme Court: Workers’ Compensation Settlement Proceeds Are Beyond Reach of Health Care Providers Who Treated the Worker IL Supreme Court: Workers’ Compensation Settlement Proceeds Are Beyond Reach of Health Care Providers Who Treated the Worker
Jan 24, 2020

Arkansas Worker Fails to Show Injury Was Not “Substantially Occasioned” by Marijuana Use

Stressing that an Arkansas appellate court must defer to the state Commission’s findings of credibility and its resolution of conflicting evidence, even though it is the administrative law judge —...

Arkansas Worker Fails to Show Injury Was Not “Substantially Occasioned” by Marijuana Use Arkansas Worker Fails to Show Injury Was Not “Substantially Occasioned” by Marijuana Use
Jan 23, 2020

Blowing Both Hot and Cold: When Can Florida Employer Deny Comp Claim and Later Say Tort Action is Barred by Exclusive Remedy Rule?

Yesterday, a Florida appellate court held an employer and a co-employee were not estopped to raise the exclusive remedy defense in a civil action filed against them by a plaintiff...

Blowing Both Hot and Cold: When Can Florida Employer Deny Comp Claim and Later Say Tort Action is Barred by Exclusive Remedy Rule? Blowing Both Hot and Cold: When Can Florida Employer Deny Comp Claim and Later Say Tort Action is 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