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
Apr 19, 2019

NY Court Reverses Board’s Decision to Disqualify Claimant From Future Benefits

Court Says Board Mischaracterized Videotape Surveillance Evidence A New York appellate court reversed a decision by the state’s Workers’ Compensation Board that disqualified a claimant from receiving future wage replacement...

NY Court Reverses Board’s Decision to Disqualify Claimant From Future Benefits NY Court Reverses Board’s Decision to Disqualify Claimant From Future Benefits
Apr 18, 2019

Missouri Court Affirms Award for Fall in Employer’s Parking Garage

45-Year Employee Did Not Face Similar Risk in Non-Employment Life A Missouri appellate court affirmed a decision by the state’s Labor and Industrial Relations Commission that awarded workers’ compensation benefits...

Missouri Court Affirms Award for Fall in Employer’s Parking Garage Missouri Court Affirms Award for Fall in Employer’s Parking Garage
Apr 17, 2019

Deeply Divided MS Court Says Deceased Employee’s Ex-Wife May Impose Lien for Child Support

Lien Allowed in Spite of Fact that Children Had Been Adopted by Step-Father In a 5-4 decision, the Court of Appeals of Mississippi held the biological children of a deceased...

Deeply Divided MS Court Says Deceased Employee’s Ex-Wife May Impose Lien for Child Support Deeply Divided MS Court Says Deceased Employee’s Ex-Wife May Impose Lien for Child Support
Apr 16, 2019

Ohio Supreme Court Says Federal Employment Standards May Not Be Used to Determine if Claimant Was Part of Workforce

An Ohio appellate court erred when, in trying to determine if a claimant was part of the active workforce, it turned to an article describing how the United States Department...

Ohio Supreme Court Says Federal Employment Standards May Not Be Used to Determine if Claimant Was Part of Workforce Ohio Supreme Court Says Federal Employment Standards May Not Be Used to Determine if Claimant Was Part of Workforce
Apr 15, 2019

Kansas Supreme Court Reiterates: “Idiopathic” and “Unknown” Are Not Synonyms

Case Sent Back to Board for Determination Consistent With its Holding In a case of first impression, the Supreme Court of Kansas, affirming a decision of the state’s Court of...

Kansas Supreme Court Reiterates: “Idiopathic” and “Unknown” Are Not Synonyms Kansas Supreme Court Reiterates: “Idiopathic” and “Unknown” Are Not Synonyms
Apr 15, 2019

Colorado DIME Physician's Opinion Not Always Given Presumptive Deference

DIME Physician’s Opinions as to the Cause of Engineer’s Narcolepsy Not Afforded Special Deference By virtue of a special Colorado statute [Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-42-107(8)(b)(III)], a division-sponsored independent medical...

Colorado DIME Physician's Opinion Not Always Given Presumptive Deference Colorado DIME Physician's Opinion Not Always Given Presumptive Deference
Apr 12, 2019

Rhode Island’s “Work-Sharing” Benefits Not Used in Computing AWW

In a case of first impression, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island held that “benefits” received under the state’s “work-sharing” program [see R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-44-69] are not to...

Rhode Island’s “Work-Sharing” Benefits Not Used in Computing AWW Rhode Island’s “Work-Sharing” Benefits Not Used in Computing AWW
Apr 11, 2019

Nebraska Deputy’s Fatal Injuries in Auto Accident Not Compensable

Deputy Was on Cell Phone Exchanging Shift-Change Information at Time of Crash A deputy sheriff’s death in an automobile accident did not arise out of and in the course of...

Nebraska Deputy’s Fatal Injuries in Auto Accident Not Compensable Nebraska Deputy’s Fatal Injuries in Auto Accident Not Compensable
Apr 10, 2019

Exclusive Remedy Defense Protects Some Employers In Spite of Express Indemnification Agreement

Landlord Could Not Implead Tenant/Employer In Injured Employee’s Suit Where Employer Was Not Negligent The exclusive remedy provision of the Delaware Workers’ Compensation Act [Del. Code Ann. tit. 19, §...

Exclusive Remedy Defense Protects Some Employers In Spite of Express Indemnification Agreement Exclusive Remedy Defense Protects Some Employers In Spite of Express Indemnification Agreement
Apr 9, 2019

Florida’s 6-Month Limitation on Temporary “Physical-Mental” Benefits is Constitutional

A Florida appellate court has upheld the constitutionality of a provision within the state’s Workers’ Compensation Act [§ 440.093(3), Fla. Stat.] that cuts off temporary benefits for psychiatric injuries six...

Florida’s 6-Month Limitation on Temporary “Physical-Mental” Benefits is Constitutional Florida’s 6-Month Limitation on Temporary “Physical-Mental” Benefits is Constitutional
Apr 8, 2019

No Recovery for Home-Based Workers’ Comp Adjuster Who Trips Over Her Dog

Deeply Divided Florida Court Says Risk of Tripping Did Not Arise Out of Employment Emphasizing that eligibility for workers’ compensation benefits turns on whether the employment led to the risk...

No Recovery for Home-Based Workers’ Comp Adjuster Who Trips Over Her Dog No Recovery for Home-Based Workers’ Comp Adjuster Who Trips Over Her Dog
Apr 4, 2019

Here We Go Again: Arkansas Bill Would Establish ERISA-Based “Alternative” System for Workers’ Compensation

Is This a Different Tack to Allow Employers to “Opt-Out” of Compulsory Coverage? Two days ago (April 2, 2019), Arkansas state senator Stanley Jason Rapert (Republican-35th District) introduced a bill...

Here We Go Again: Arkansas Bill Would Establish ERISA-Based “Alternative” System for Workers’ Compensation Here We Go Again: Arkansas Bill Would Establish ERISA-Based “Alternative” System for Workers’ Compensation

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