Newest Articles

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
Feb 26, 2026

Florida Court: IME Report Is Not a “Prescription” for Attendant Care

The Florida First District Court of Appeal has reversed an award of 24-hour attendant care benefits where the only “prescription” supporting the award appeared in an Independent Medical Examiner’s report...

Florida Court: IME Report Is Not a “Prescription” for Attendant Care Florida Court: IME Report Is Not a “Prescription” for Attendant Care

All Articles

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

Washington Court Rejects Dual Persona Exception to Co-Employee Immunity for Property-Owning Supervisors

The Washington Court of Appeals has rejected a novel attempt to sidestep co-employee immunity under the state’s Industrial Insurance Act, holding that property ownership alone does not establish the “separate...

Washington Court Rejects Dual Persona Exception to Co-Employee Immunity for Property-Owning Supervisors Washington Court Rejects Dual Persona Exception to Co-Employee Immunity for Property-Owning Supervisors
Aug 6, 2025

Louisiana Court Allows “Substantially Certain” Workers’ Compensation Bypass in Lawnmower Injury Case

In a decision that demonstrates Louisiana’s more liberal approach to the “substantially certain” exception to workers’ compensation exclusivity, the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal reversed a trial court’s dismissal...

Louisiana Court Allows “Substantially Certain” Workers’ Compensation Bypass in Lawnmower Injury Case Louisiana Court Allows “Substantially Certain” Workers’ Compensation Bypass in Lawnmower Injury Case
Aug 4, 2025

Tennessee Court Finds Injuries from Medical Travel Compensable

In Wade v. State, 2025 Tenn. LEXIS 283 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. Panel July 30, 2025), a Tennessee workers’ compensation appeals panel reversed the Claims Commission’s denial of medical benefits, applying...

Tennessee Court Finds Injuries from Medical Travel Compensable Tennessee Court Finds Injuries from Medical Travel Compensable
Jul 28, 2025

CT Employer’s Videotape Sinks Employee’s Emotional Distress Tort Claim

An employee’s civil action filed against her employer alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress following a workplace dog bite is barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Connecticut Workers’...

CT Employer’s Videotape Sinks Employee’s Emotional Distress Tort Claim CT Employer’s Videotape Sinks Employee’s Emotional Distress Tort Claim
Jul 22, 2025

Michigan Court Rejects Intentional Tort Claim in Fatal Workplace Shooting

In Brown v. Burlington Coat Factory of Texas, Inc., 2025 Mich. App. LEXIS 5524 (Mich. Ct. App. July 11, 2025), the Michigan Court of Appeals reaffirmed the narrow scope of...

Michigan Court Rejects Intentional Tort Claim in Fatal Workplace Shooting Michigan Court Rejects Intentional Tort Claim in Fatal Workplace Shooting
Jul 21, 2025

Minnesota Supreme Court Clarifies PTSD Coverage for First Responders

The Minnesota Supreme Court, in a divided decision, has issued a significant decision that potentially expands workers’ compensation coverage for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) claims, particularly those brought by first...

Minnesota Supreme Court Clarifies PTSD Coverage for First Responders Minnesota Supreme Court Clarifies PTSD Coverage for First Responders
Jul 17, 2025

CT ALJ’s Dismissal of Survivor’s Claim Reinstated—Board Improperly Reweighed Suicide Causation Evidence

In Buchanan v. Town of East Hartford, 2025 Conn. App. LEXIS 208 (July 15, 2025), the Connecticut Appellate Court, reversing a decision of the state’s Compensation Review Board, reinstated an...

CT ALJ’s Dismissal of Survivor’s Claim Reinstated—Board Improperly Reweighed Suicide Causation Evidence CT ALJ’s Dismissal of Survivor’s Claim Reinstated—Board Improperly Reweighed Suicide Causation Evidence
Jul 16, 2025

Nebraska Court Affirms Denial of Benefits for Post-Accident Knee Surgery

In Hernandez v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, 2025 Neb. App. LEXIS 374 (Neb. Ct. App. July 1, 2025) (not designated for permanent publication). the Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the Workers’...

Nebraska Court Affirms Denial of Benefits for Post-Accident Knee Surgery Nebraska Court Affirms Denial of Benefits for Post-Accident Knee Surgery
Jul 15, 2025

Caught on Camera: Surveillance Undermines NC Claimant’s Testimony

Surveillance footage doesn’t always tell the whole story—but sometimes it tells just enough. In a recent decision, the Court of Appeals upheld the state Industrial Commission’s denial of workers’ compensation...

Caught on Camera: Surveillance Undermines NC Claimant’s Testimony Caught on Camera: Surveillance Undermines NC Claimant’s Testimony
Jul 14, 2025

Who Sets the Fee? Two New Mexico Decisions Clarify the State’s Comp Law

Two recent decisions from the New Mexico Supreme Court—Pena v. State, 2025-NMSC-007, 2025 N.M. LEXIS 138 (June 27, 2025), and Hanrahan v. State, 2025-NMSC-008, 2025 N.M. LEXIS 139 (June 27,...

Who Sets the Fee? Two New Mexico Decisions Clarify the State’s Comp Law Who Sets the Fee? Two New Mexico Decisions Clarify the State’s Comp Law
Jul 8, 2025

Maryland High Court Bars Wrongful Death Suit Against Employer by Non-Dependent Child

In a case of first impression, a deeply divided (4–3) Maryland Supreme Court recently held that the exclusive remedy provisions of the state’s Workers' Compensation Act bar a wrongful death...

Maryland High Court Bars Wrongful Death Suit Against Employer by Non-Dependent Child Maryland High Court Bars Wrongful Death Suit Against Employer by Non-Dependent Child
Jul 7, 2025

PA Court: Good Faith COVID Vaccination Refusal Doesn’t Amount to Wilful Misconduct

A recent decision from the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania offers important guidance for workers’ compensation practitioners navigating COVID-19 vaccination mandate disputes. The court held that an employee’s well-documented religious and...

PA Court: Good Faith COVID Vaccination Refusal Doesn’t Amount to Wilful Misconduct PA Court: Good Faith COVID Vaccination Refusal Doesn’t Amount to Wilful Misconduct

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