Newest Articles

Throwback Thursday: Krause v. Swartwood (1928) – When Lunch is Part of the Job

Throwback Thursday: Krause v. Swartwood (1928) – When Lunch is Part of the Job Throwback Thursday: Krause v. Swartwood (1928) – When Lunch is Part of the Job
Issue commentary
Feb 19, 2025

NY Court Upholds Permanent Benefits Ban Based on Surveillance Evidence

In a decision that reinforces the potential consequences of misrepresenting one’s physical condition, a New York appellate court has upheld the permanent disqualification from wage replacement benefits of a workers’...

NY Court Upholds Permanent Benefits Ban Based on Surveillance Evidence NY Court Upholds Permanent Benefits Ban Based on Surveillance Evidence
Case comment
Feb 18, 2025

Drug Test Delay Dooms Kansas Employer’s Attempt to Deny Benefits

In an unpublished decision, a Kansas appellate court has struck down an employer’s attempt to deny workers’ compensation benefits to an employee who refused a drug test 18 days after...

Drug Test Delay Dooms Kansas Employer’s Attempt to Deny Benefits Drug Test Delay Dooms Kansas Employer’s Attempt to Deny Benefits
Case comment
Feb 14, 2025

Cautious Medical Testimony Dooms NY Teacher’s Stroke Claim

In Matter of Tudor v. Whitehall Cent. Sch. Dist., 2025 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 827 (3d Dept., Feb. 13, 2025), the New York Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the state...

Cautious Medical Testimony Dooms NY Teacher’s Stroke Claim Cautious Medical Testimony Dooms NY Teacher’s Stroke Claim
Case comment
Feb 13, 2025

Throwback Thursday: Kelly v. Federal Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. (1949)

Background On May 21, 1946, Kelly fell and injured his left knee in an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment with the employer. He...

Throwback Thursday: Kelly v. Federal Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. (1949) Throwback Thursday: Kelly v. Federal Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. (1949)
Issue commentary

All Articles

CATEGORY
ARCHIVE
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
Jun 27, 2024

Delaware Supreme Court Says COVID-19 Not Occupational Disease for Poultry Worker

Delaware Supreme Court Says COVID-19 Not Occupational Disease for Poultry Worker Delaware Supreme Court Says COVID-19 Not Occupational Disease for Poultry Worker
Case comment
Jun 24, 2024

Ladder Safety “Feet” Are Not “Equipment Safety Guard” Under Ohio’s Intentional Tort Statute

Ladder Safety “Feet” Are Not “Equipment Safety Guard” Under Ohio’s Intentional Tort Statute Ladder Safety “Feet” Are Not “Equipment Safety Guard” Under Ohio’s Intentional Tort Statute
Case comment
Jun 20, 2024

NY Board Erred in Denying Review of COVID Claim Because Claimant Used Old RB-89 Form

NY Board Erred in Denying Review of COVID Claim Because Claimant Used Old RB-89 Form NY Board Erred in Denying Review of COVID Claim Because Claimant Used Old RB-89 Form
Case comment
Jun 19, 2024

9th Circuit: California’s Differential Treatment of App-Based Transportation and Delivery Companies Survives Rational Basis Review

9th Circuit: California’s Differential Treatment of App-Based Transportation and Delivery Companies Survives Rational Basis Review 9th Circuit: California’s Differential Treatment of App-Based Transportation and Delivery Companies Survives Rational Basis Review
Case comment
Jun 18, 2024

California Court Revives Widow’s COVID-19 Suit Against Husband’s Employer

California Court Revives Widow’s COVID-19 Suit Against Husband’s Employer California Court Revives Widow’s COVID-19 Suit Against Husband’s Employer
Case comment
Jun 17, 2024

Florida Court Reverses AWW Calculation for Minor League Baseball Player

Florida Court Reverses AWW Calculation for Minor League Baseball Player Florida Court Reverses AWW Calculation for Minor League Baseball Player
Case comment
Jun 17, 2024

Oklahoma: Co-Employee Must Be In Course and Scope of Employment for Exclusive Remedy Protection

Oklahoma: Co-Employee Must Be In Course and Scope of Employment for Exclusive Remedy Protection Oklahoma: Co-Employee Must Be In Course and Scope of Employment for Exclusive Remedy Protection
Case comment
Jun 14, 2024

D.C. Court of Appeals: Midwife's Injury Walking Between Buildings Arose Out of and In the Course of Employment

D.C. Court of Appeals: Midwife's Injury Walking Between Buildings Arose Out of and In the Course of Employment D.C. Court of Appeals: Midwife's Injury Walking Between Buildings Arose Out of and In the Course of Employment
Case comment
Jun 12, 2024

Hawaii Court Says Employer May be Estopped from Asserting Statute of Limitations Defense

Hawaii Court Says Employer May be Estopped from Asserting Statute of Limitations Defense Hawaii Court Says Employer May be Estopped from Asserting Statute of Limitations Defense
Case comment
Jun 11, 2024

MD Court: Financial Advisor's Pneumonitis Not an Occupational Disease

MD Court: Financial Advisor's Pneumonitis Not an Occupational Disease MD Court: Financial Advisor's Pneumonitis Not an Occupational Disease
Case comment
Jun 10, 2024

MS Employer/Carrier Not Entitled to Reimbursement for Second Medical Opinion Out of Injured Employee’s Third-Party Recovery

MS Employer/Carrier Not Entitled to Reimbursement for Second Medical Opinion Out of Injured Employee’s Third-Party Recovery MS Employer/Carrier Not Entitled to Reimbursement for Second Medical Opinion Out of Injured Employee’s Third-Party Recovery
Case comment
Jun 10, 2024

California Building Owner Not Liable in Tort for Injuries to Sub’s Employee

California Building Owner Not Liable in Tort for Injuries to Sub’s Employee California Building Owner Not Liable in Tort for Injuries to Sub’s Employee
Case comment

New Comments

  • 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
  • Thomas A. Robinson: Good point, although the interesting thing about the case--at least to me--is that it discusses the important "injury by accident" issue. That issue, present in at least a plurality of state acts, is largely ignored by Commissions, Boards, and Courts these days. Here, also, the case was so fact-specific that even it had been issued as published, it would be factually distinguishable from many othe...
  • kathlyn gorman: It should have been noted in your discussion that this is an unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Thus, it does not constitute controlling legal authority.
  • Thomas A. Robinson: You're correct. Ordinarily, I can depend upon Alabama to provide me with at least one case for "the List." I'll bet 2022 will unearth something bizarre from the Great State of Alabama. Take care.