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
Dec 3, 2019

$7 Million Verdict Against Iowa Co-Employee Cannot Stand

Construing Iowa’s co-employee immunity statute, Iowa Code § 85.20(2), which allows a co-employee to be sued for injuries caused by the co-employee’s “gross negligence amounting to such lack of care...

$7 Million Verdict Against Iowa Co-Employee Cannot Stand $7 Million Verdict Against Iowa Co-Employee Cannot Stand
Dec 2, 2019

Virginia Courts “Liberally Construe” the State’s Act—Not the Evidence Itself

Stressing that Virginia courts were required to “liberally construe” the state’s Workers’ Compensation Act, but not the evidence in the record before it, the Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed...

Virginia Courts “Liberally Construe” the State’s Act—Not the Evidence Itself Virginia Courts “Liberally Construe” the State’s Act—Not the Evidence Itself
Nov 27, 2019

Federal Court Says Retaliatory Discharge Action May Not Be Removed

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia recently held that that the removal of plaintiff’s retaliatory discharge action that had been filed in state court was...

Federal Court Says Retaliatory Discharge Action May Not Be Removed Federal Court Says Retaliatory Discharge Action May Not Be Removed
Nov 26, 2019

MD Court Says Tyson Was Co-Employer of Worker at Uninsured Chicken Farm

Where a chicken farm owner—who knew virtually nothing about raising chickens—exercised minimal control over an employee manager of the farm, yet Tyson Farms, Inc., which contracted with the farm owner...

MD Court Says Tyson Was Co-Employer of Worker at Uninsured Chicken Farm MD Court Says Tyson Was Co-Employer of Worker at Uninsured Chicken Farm
Nov 25, 2019

PA Supreme Court Refuses Narrow Definition of Employer’s “Premises” in Parking Lot Case

Affirming a decision of the state’s Commonwealth Court, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recently held that an airline employee who was injured while riding an airport shuttle bus to an...

PA Supreme Court Refuses Narrow Definition of Employer’s “Premises” in Parking Lot Case PA Supreme Court Refuses Narrow Definition of Employer’s “Premises” in Parking Lot Case
Nov 21, 2019

Claims Regarding 40-Year-Old Injury Not Barred by Florida Statute of Limitations

Where a Florida employer, for unknown reasons, stopped paying an injured worker PTD benefits in 1987 regarding the claimant’s accepted claim, but the Division of Workers’ Compensation (“the Division”) continued...

Claims Regarding 40-Year-Old Injury Not Barred by Florida Statute of Limitations Claims Regarding 40-Year-Old Injury Not Barred by Florida Statute of Limitations
Nov 20, 2019

NM Supreme Court Applies IME Statute to Death Benefit Cases

In a well-expressed opinion that illustrates how an appellate court is sometimes required to construe an ambiguous statute, the Supreme Court of New Mexico held that while there was no...

NM Supreme Court Applies IME Statute to Death Benefit Cases NM Supreme Court Applies IME Statute to Death Benefit Cases
Nov 19, 2019

Florida JCC May Not Ignore Clear Opinion of Expert Medical Advisor

Where an Expert Medical Advisor (EMA) clearly indicated in his report that a claimant had not reached MMI because of the claimant’s need for future surgery, it was error for...

Florida JCC May Not Ignore Clear Opinion of Expert Medical Advisor Florida JCC May Not Ignore Clear Opinion of Expert Medical Advisor
Nov 18, 2019

Ohio Worker Gets PTD Benefits in Spite of Refusing Vocational Rehab

Acknowledging that an employee’s refusal of vocational rehabilitation services can constitute voluntary abandonment of the workforce for disability compensation purposes, an Ohio appellate court held that such a refusal does...

Ohio Worker Gets PTD Benefits in Spite of Refusing Vocational Rehab Ohio Worker Gets PTD Benefits in Spite of Refusing Vocational Rehab
Nov 15, 2019

On-Premises Slip and Fall Not Compensable for Arkansas Worker

Illustrating the narrow rule that Arkansas utilizes to determine if an injury arises out of and in the course of the employment, a state appellate court recently affirmed the denial...

On-Premises Slip and Fall Not Compensable for Arkansas Worker On-Premises Slip and Fall Not Compensable for Arkansas Worker
Nov 14, 2019

Missouri Worker Fails to Connect Tinnitus to Work-Related Brawl

In a decision illustrating the broad latitude given to Missouri’s Labor & Industrial Relations Commission in judging the weight of medical evidence, a panel of a state appellate court recently...

Missouri Worker Fails to Connect Tinnitus to Work-Related Brawl Missouri Worker Fails to Connect Tinnitus to Work-Related Brawl
Nov 12, 2019

Hospital Worker’s Injuries Exiting Elevator Cannot Support Tort Suit Against Louisiana Employer

Where a hospital worker, who had arrived at her employer’s facility one hour prior to the time she was supposed to clock in (which was her habit), sustained injuries as...

Hospital Worker’s Injuries Exiting Elevator Cannot Support Tort Suit Against Louisiana Employer Hospital Worker’s Injuries Exiting Elevator Cannot Support Tort Suit Against Louisiana Employer

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