Newest Articles

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
May 27, 2026

Nebraska Supreme Court Affirms Denial of Death Benefits Where Work Injury Delayed Cancer Treatment

In a case involving a Nebraska truck driver-farm laborer whose treatment for metastatic cancer was allegedly postponed by complications associated with a compensable hip injury and its resulting treatment, the...

Nebraska Supreme Court Affirms Denial of Death Benefits Where Work Injury Delayed Cancer Treatment Nebraska Supreme Court Affirms Denial of Death Benefits Where Work Injury Delayed Cancer Treatment

All Articles

ARCHIVE
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
Oct 30, 2018

Virginia Court Affirms Commission’s Safety Violation Finding

Driver’s Failure to Chock Wheels Results in Loss of Comp Benefits A Virginia appellate court recently affirmed a finding by the state’s Workers’ Compensation Commission that a truck driver willfully...

Virginia Court Affirms Commission’s Safety Violation Finding Virginia Court Affirms Commission’s Safety Violation Finding
Oct 26, 2018

Nebraska Physician Assistant May Not Sign Medical Report

While the term, “physician,” as defined by Neb. Workers’ Comp. R. 49(O) (2018), generally includes those practicing osteopathic medicine, chiropractic, podiatry, or dentistry, it does not include a physician assistant,...

Nebraska Physician Assistant May Not Sign Medical Report Nebraska Physician Assistant May Not Sign Medical Report
Oct 26, 2018

PA Governor Wolf Signs House Bill 1840 (i.e., “the Protz Fix”)

As was widely anticipated, on Wednesday (October 24, 2018), Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf signed House Bill 1840, known by some as “the Protz fix,” reestablishing that the AMA Guides, 6th...

PA Governor Wolf Signs House Bill 1840 (i.e., “the Protz Fix”) PA Governor Wolf Signs House Bill 1840 (i.e., “the Protz Fix”)
Oct 26, 2018

Trainee/Apprentice May Not Sue Independent Contractor/Truck Driver

Independent Contractor/Driver Was Joint Employer Under Iowa Law Construing Iowa law, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a federal district court’s decision granting summary judgment to an independent...

Trainee/Apprentice May Not Sue Independent Contractor/Truck Driver Trainee/Apprentice May Not Sue Independent Contractor/Truck Driver
Oct 22, 2018

Protz “Fix” Awaits PA Governor’s Signature

Last Thursday (October 18, 2018), the Pennsylvania legislature sent House Bill 1840, a/k/a “the Protz Fix,” to Governor Wolf’s desk for his signature. Passed by an easy 34-15 margin, the...

Protz “Fix” Awaits PA Governor’s Signature Protz “Fix” Awaits PA Governor’s Signature
Oct 16, 2018

Vermont High Court Again Refuses to Utilize “Substantial Certainty” Exception for Intentional Injury Cases

Reiterating its decision in Kittell v. Vermont Weatherboard, Inc., 138 Vt. 439, 417 A.2d 926 (1980) (per curiam), in which the Supreme Court of Vermont held that nothing short of...

Vermont High Court Again Refuses to Utilize “Substantial Certainty” Exception for Intentional Injury Cases Vermont High Court Again Refuses to Utilize “Substantial Certainty” Exception for Intentional Injury Cases
Oct 15, 2018

Virginia Bus Driver’s Failure to Wear Seat Belt Constituted Willful Misconduct

A bus driver, who sustained serious injuries in an accident in which his bus was struck from behind, causing it to careen against a guard rail and then flip over,...

Virginia Bus Driver’s Failure to Wear Seat Belt Constituted Willful Misconduct Virginia Bus Driver’s Failure to Wear Seat Belt Constituted Willful Misconduct
Oct 15, 2018

Affiliated NY Company Liable for Half of Driver’s Comp Benefits as Special Employer

In Matter of Mitchell v. Eaton’s Trucking Serv., Inc., 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6806 (3rd Dept., Oct. 11, 2018), a New York appellate court affirmed a decision of the...

Affiliated NY Company Liable for Half of Driver’s Comp Benefits as Special Employer Affiliated NY Company Liable for Half of Driver’s Comp Benefits as Special Employer
Oct 9, 2018

Employee’s Medical Bills Not Covered by “Medpay” Provision of Arizona Auto Policy Due to Exclusion for Workers’ Compensation Benefits

Where an employee was injured in a work-related auto accident, incurred $22,000 in medical expenses, a portion of which was paid pursuant to a workers’ compensation claim and the employee...

Employee’s Medical Bills Not Covered by “Medpay” Provision of Arizona Auto Policy Due to Exclusion for Workers’ Compensation Benefits Employee’s Medical Bills Not Covered by “Medpay” Provision of Arizona Auto Policy Due to Exclusion for Workers’ Compensation Benefits
Oct 8, 2018

NY Employee’s Shoulder Injury While Scanning Parking Pass Not Compensable

An employee, who sustained a shoulder injury as she reached out of her car window to scan her parking pass at a parking garage near her place of employment, did...

NY Employee’s Shoulder Injury While Scanning Parking Pass Not Compensable NY Employee’s Shoulder Injury While Scanning Parking Pass Not Compensable
Sep 18, 2018

I’ve Written a New Book from the “Other Side” of my Life

I am pleased to announce the recent publication of my new book entitled, Questions of Faith: Encountering Christ at the Point of Doubt and Confusion [Mazarin Press, Raleigh, NC; additional...

I’ve Written a New Book from the “Other Side” of my Life I’ve Written a New Book from the “Other Side” of my Life
Sep 18, 2018

Nevada Casino Employee’s Tort Action Against Employer for Delaying Stroke Treatment is Barred by Exclusivity

A housekeeping employee at a Las Vegas casino, who suffered a stroke just prior to the beginning of his work shift, and who contended his medical condition was exacerbated when...

Nevada Casino Employee’s Tort Action Against Employer for Delaying Stroke Treatment is Barred by Exclusivity Nevada Casino Employee’s Tort Action Against Employer for Delaying Stroke Treatment is Barred by Exclusivity

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