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
Sep 12, 2019

Wyoming High Court Says Both Employer and Division of Workers’ Compensation Estopped From Using Statute of Limitations Defense

In a complex case, with procedural twists and turns, the Supreme Court of Wyoming reversed a finding that an employee’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits was barred because he failed...

Wyoming High Court Says Both Employer and Division of Workers’ Compensation Estopped From Using Statute of Limitations Defense Wyoming High Court Says Both Employer and Division of Workers’ Compensation Estopped From Using Statute of Limitations Defense
Sep 11, 2019

Utah High Court Comes Close to Adopting Positional Risk for Unexplained Falls

The Supreme Court of Utah affirmed a finding by the state’s Labor Commission that an employee’s injuries sustained in an unexplained fall in a parking lot adjacent to the employer’s...

Utah High Court Comes Close to Adopting Positional Risk for Unexplained Falls Utah High Court Comes Close to Adopting Positional Risk for Unexplained Falls
Sep 10, 2019

Sixth Circuit Side-Steps Federal Immigration Issue in Retaliatory Discharge Action

While hypothetical questions may have been the standard in law school courses taught via the Socratic Method, the Sixth Circuit recently held such questions are not to be considered by...

Sixth Circuit Side-Steps Federal Immigration Issue in Retaliatory Discharge Action Sixth Circuit Side-Steps Federal Immigration Issue in Retaliatory Discharge Action
Sep 6, 2019

Tourist Medicine May Be Coming to a Comp Claim Near You

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Doctor. I shared a nostalgic conversation last week with a similarly-aged J.D. about our early days of law practice. More than...

Tourist Medicine May Be Coming to a Comp Claim Near You Tourist Medicine May Be Coming to a Comp Claim Near You
Sep 5, 2019

Provision of Vehicle to Employee Not Controlling Factor in Texas Death Benefits Case

The provision by an employer of a company-owned vehicle was insufficient to establish a work-connection between an employee’s fatal vehicle accident and the employment, held a Texas appellate court recently...

Provision of Vehicle to Employee Not Controlling Factor in Texas Death Benefits Case Provision of Vehicle to Employee Not Controlling Factor in Texas Death Benefits Case
Aug 30, 2019

Rule 12(b)(1) vs. 12(b)(6): What’s the Difference? Parties Discover that With Motions to Dismiss, Subsections Matter

Questions of employer immunity from actions for workplace injuries do not raise issues pertaining to the original subject matter jurisdiction of Washington's superior courts, held a state appellate court in...

Rule 12(b)(1) vs. 12(b)(6): What’s the Difference? Parties Discover that With Motions to Dismiss, Subsections Matter Rule 12(b)(1) vs. 12(b)(6): What’s the Difference? Parties Discover that With Motions to Dismiss, Subsections Matter
Aug 29, 2019

Texas Gross Negligence Statute Requires Showing of Both Objective and Subjective Elements

Construing Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 408.001(b), which provides that the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act does not prohibit the recovery of exemplary damages by the...

Texas Gross Negligence Statute Requires Showing of Both Objective and Subjective Elements Texas Gross Negligence Statute Requires Showing of Both Objective and Subjective Elements
Aug 27, 2019

Maryland First Responder’s Degenerative Knee Condition is Occupational “Disease”

In a divided decision, the Court of Appeals of Maryland yesterday held that since there was no showing that a first responder had a concomitant preexisting condition, and since he...

Maryland First Responder’s Degenerative Knee Condition is Occupational “Disease” Maryland First Responder’s Degenerative Knee Condition is Occupational “Disease”
Aug 26, 2019

Receipt of Benefits Bars Worker and Parents of Deceased Worker From Maintaining Civil Actions Against North Dakota “Employer”

Where one North Dakota worker was killed and another seriously injured in a work-related explosion, neither the deceased worker’s parents nor the injured worker could maintain a civil action against...

Receipt of Benefits Bars Worker and Parents of Deceased Worker From Maintaining Civil Actions Against North Dakota “Employer” Receipt of Benefits Bars Worker and Parents of Deceased Worker From Maintaining Civil Actions Against North Dakota “Employer”
Aug 23, 2019

Bartering Arrangement Results in Loss of PTD Benefits for Ohio Man

A partially-divided Supreme Court of Ohio has affirmed a decision by a lower level appellate court that, in turn, had refused to vacate an order terminating an injured worker’s PTD...

Bartering Arrangement Results in Loss of PTD Benefits for Ohio Man Bartering Arrangement Results in Loss of PTD Benefits for Ohio Man
Aug 22, 2019

New Hampshire Injured Worker’s Death from Heroin and Oxycodone Overdose is not Compensable

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire recently affirmed a decision of the state’s Compensation Appeals Board (CAB) that denied death benefits to the widow of a worker who died of...

New Hampshire Injured Worker’s Death from Heroin and Oxycodone Overdose is not Compensable New Hampshire Injured Worker’s Death from Heroin and Oxycodone Overdose is not Compensable
Aug 15, 2019

SC’s Auto Insurance Carriers May Not Offset PIP Benefits by Amounts Insured Receives for Workers’ Comp Benefits

In a tale of the “dueling statutes,” the Supreme Court of South Carolina recently held that insurers providing automobile insurance may not reduce their obligations to provide no-fault personal injury...

SC’s Auto Insurance Carriers May Not Offset PIP Benefits by Amounts Insured Receives for Workers’ Comp Benefits SC’s Auto Insurance Carriers May Not Offset PIP Benefits by Amounts Insured Receives for Workers’ Comp Benefits

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