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
Jun 13, 2019

Delaware Supreme Court Says Injured Employees May Recover Under Employer’s Underinsured Motorist Coverage

The Supreme Court of Delaware, reversing earlier rulings by a state trial court, held that the exclusive remedy provisions of the state’s Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act), two workers who...

Delaware Supreme Court Says Injured Employees May Recover Under Employer’s Underinsured Motorist Coverage Delaware Supreme Court Says Injured Employees May Recover Under Employer’s Underinsured Motorist Coverage
Jun 12, 2019

Seattle Delivery Service Hit With $1 Million in Workers’ Comp Premiums, Penalties and Interest

Two weeks ago I wrote about Amazon’s new “last-mile” delivery service. In that post, I pointed out that Amazon had carefully crafted the business model to assure that the delivery...

Seattle Delivery Service Hit With $1 Million in Workers’ Comp Premiums, Penalties and Interest Seattle Delivery Service Hit With $1 Million in Workers’ Comp Premiums, Penalties and Interest
Jun 11, 2019

Federal Court in Colorado Holds Injured Employee May Not Recover Under Employer’s Uninsured Motorist Coverage

In a diversity insurance case that the court indicated was an issue of first impression, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, construing Colorado law, held that an...

Federal Court in Colorado Holds Injured Employee May Not Recover Under Employer’s Uninsured Motorist Coverage Federal Court in Colorado Holds Injured Employee May Not Recover Under Employer’s Uninsured Motorist Coverage
Jun 10, 2019

Colorado High Court Says 8th Amendment’s “Excessive Fines” Prohibition Protects Corporations, as Well as Individuals

Decision Calls Into Question Whether Per Diem Fines to Uninsured Employers Are Unconstitutionally Harsh The Supreme Court of Colorado, with one justice dissenting in part, recently held that the Eighth...

Colorado High Court Says 8th Amendment’s “Excessive Fines” Prohibition Protects Corporations, as Well as Individuals Colorado High Court Says 8th Amendment’s “Excessive Fines” Prohibition Protects Corporations, as Well as Individuals
Jun 7, 2019

Texas Employee’s Tort Action for Fall in Parking Lot Injury May Move Forward

Employer Fails to Show Injury “Fell” Within “Access Doctrine” Exception to Going and Coming Rule A Texas appellate court recently held that an employer—the City of Corpus Christi—failed to show...

Texas Employee’s Tort Action for Fall in Parking Lot Injury May Move Forward Texas Employee’s Tort Action for Fall in Parking Lot Injury May Move Forward
Jun 6, 2019

NY Claimant Establishes Aspergillosis Claim as an Accidental Injury

Court’s Ruling of No Occupational Disease Does Not Bar Claim (After Remittal) for Accidental Injury Where a New York appellate court reversed the state Workers’ Compensation Board’s finding that a...

NY Claimant Establishes Aspergillosis Claim as an Accidental Injury NY Claimant Establishes Aspergillosis Claim as an Accidental Injury
Jun 5, 2019

For Illinois “Borrowing Employer,” Exclusive Remedy Defense Not Tied to Payment of Insurance Premiums

A temporary staffing agency worker may not maintain a cause of action against a “borrowing employer” for personal injuries sustained in a work-related accident in spite of the fact that...

For Illinois “Borrowing Employer,” Exclusive Remedy Defense Not Tied to Payment of Insurance Premiums For Illinois “Borrowing Employer,” Exclusive Remedy Defense Not Tied to Payment of Insurance Premiums
Jun 4, 2019

Injured Worker’s Failure to Mention Involvement in Side Business Did Not Result in Disqualification

A New York appellate court held the state’s Workers’ Compensation Board could reasonably conclude that a claimant had not made false statements or other misrepresentations for the purpose of obtaining...

Injured Worker’s Failure to Mention Involvement in Side Business Did Not Result in Disqualification Injured Worker’s Failure to Mention Involvement in Side Business Did Not Result in Disqualification
May 31, 2019

Amazon’s New “Last-Mile” Delivery Service: Who “Employs” that Driver-Deliverer at Your Door?

Commentary: Is the Workers’ Compensation World Ready for Amazon’s New Package Delivery Business Model? The Answer Might Surprise You! As I drove to a meeting in downtown Durham a few...

Amazon’s New “Last-Mile” Delivery Service: Who “Employs” that Driver-Deliverer at Your Door? Amazon’s New “Last-Mile” Delivery Service: Who “Employs” that Driver-Deliverer at Your Door?
May 30, 2019

What a Difference a Word Makes!

PA Criminal Defendant Who Can’t Make Bond is Not Disqualified From Benefits. Stressing that a provision within the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act [77 Pa. Stat. § 511.1] that requires suspension...

What a Difference a Word Makes! What a Difference a Word Makes!
May 29, 2019

Georgia Employee May Not Sue Employer for Negligent Denial of Medical Care Following Injury

A Georgia employee’s negligence claim against his employer for allegedly denying him access to medical care and insurance coverage following an injury in a vehicular crash is barred by the...

Georgia Employee May Not Sue Employer for Negligent Denial of Medical Care Following Injury Georgia Employee May Not Sue Employer for Negligent Denial of Medical Care Following Injury
May 28, 2019

Oregon Supreme Court Clarifies Standard in Unexplained Fall Cases

Finding that both the Oregon Workers’ Compensation Board and the state’s Court of Appeals had erroneously utilized the appropriate legal standard in their attempts to determine whether a bank employee’s...

Oregon Supreme Court Clarifies Standard in Unexplained Fall Cases Oregon Supreme Court Clarifies Standard in Unexplained Fall Cases

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