Newest Articles

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
May 26, 2026

NC Court of Appeals: Exclusivity Doctrine Bars Negligence Suit Following Workplace Stroke

A North Carolina district manager who suffered a stroke while preparing for the opening of a restaurant location—and who allegedly waited hours before coworkers summoned emergency assistance—may not pursue negligence...

NC Court of Appeals: Exclusivity Doctrine Bars Negligence Suit Following Workplace Stroke NC Court of Appeals: Exclusivity Doctrine Bars Negligence Suit Following Workplace Stroke

All Articles

ARCHIVE
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
Sep 15, 2025

Oklahoma Supreme Court Clarifies “Active Pursuit” Requirement for Workers’ Compensation Claims

The Oklahoma Supreme Court recently delivered a significant ruling for employers in Obi Holding Co. v. Schultz-Butzbach, 2025 OK 55 (Sept. 9, 2025), clarifying that workers’ compensation claimants must continuously...

Oklahoma Supreme Court Clarifies “Active Pursuit” Requirement for Workers’ Compensation Claims Oklahoma Supreme Court Clarifies “Active Pursuit” Requirement for Workers’ Compensation Claims
Sep 10, 2025

Virginia Court Rejects Extended Premises Claim for Crosswalk Injury

The Virginia Court of Appeals has ruled that a public street crosswalk between a parking garage and hospital entrance did not constitute an employer’s “extended premises” under workers’ compensation law...

Virginia Court Rejects Extended Premises Claim for Crosswalk Injury Virginia Court Rejects Extended Premises Claim for Crosswalk Injury
Sep 9, 2025

Florida: EMA Opinions May Not Be Excluded under Daubert Standards

In a case of first impression, the Florida First District Court of Appeal has held that Expert Medical Advisor (EMA) reports and testimony in workers’ compensation proceedings must be admitted...

Florida: EMA Opinions May Not Be Excluded under Daubert Standards Florida: EMA Opinions May Not Be Excluded under Daubert Standards
Sep 8, 2025

ID Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Authority Over Workers’ Compensation Exception Claims

The Idaho Supreme Court has ruled that district courts retain subject matter jurisdiction over claims alleging employer “willful or unprovoked physical aggression” under Idaho Code § 72-209(3), even when a...

ID Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Authority Over Workers’ Compensation Exception Claims ID Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Authority Over Workers’ Compensation Exception Claims
Sep 3, 2025

Corporate Veil Protects Texas Business Owner From Tort When Employee Suffers Farm Injury

In Lilly v. Weisinger, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 6851 (Aug. 28, 2025), a Texas appellate court held that the exclusive remedy provision of the state’s Workers’ Compensation Act barred a...

Corporate Veil Protects Texas Business Owner From Tort When Employee Suffers Farm Injury Corporate Veil Protects Texas Business Owner From Tort When Employee Suffers Farm Injury
Sep 2, 2025

MS Court Reinforces Bright-Line Rule: Immediate Severe Pain Defeats Progressive Injury Claims

In Thomas v. International Paper Co., 2025 Miss. App. LEXIS 315 (Aug. 26, 2025), the Mississippi Court of Appeals delivered a straightforward application of the state’s progressive injury doctrine, demonstrating...

MS Court Reinforces Bright-Line Rule: Immediate Severe Pain Defeats Progressive Injury Claims MS Court Reinforces Bright-Line Rule: Immediate Severe Pain Defeats Progressive Injury Claims
Aug 19, 2025

Ohio Court Rejects VSSR Claim for Arborist’ Fatal Accident

An Ohio appellate court has denied additional workers’ compensation benefits for the fatal workplace accident of a city arborist, ruling that construction safety regulations did not apply to tree removal...

Ohio Court Rejects VSSR Claim for Arborist’ Fatal Accident Ohio Court Rejects VSSR Claim for Arborist’ Fatal Accident
Aug 18, 2025

Maine High Court Affirms AWW Calculation Despite Award Exceeding Actual Earnings

The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine has upheld an average weekly wage calculation that produces an annual workers’ compensation award of approximately $60,000 for a truck driver who had earned...

Maine High Court Affirms AWW Calculation Despite Award Exceeding Actual Earnings Maine High Court Affirms AWW Calculation Despite Award Exceeding Actual Earnings
Aug 14, 2025

PA Court Clarifies Notice Requirements: Context and Communications Matter More Than Perfect Timing

In Kimberly-Clark Mill v. Moss, 2025 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 144 (Aug. 12, 2025), the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania provided important guidance on workers’ compensation notice requirements within the Keystone State,...

PA Court Clarifies Notice Requirements: Context and Communications Matter More Than Perfect Timing PA Court Clarifies Notice Requirements: Context and Communications Matter More Than Perfect Timing
Aug 12, 2025

Issue Commentary: What Forum Decides Exclusivity?

Texas Court Applies New Jurisdictional Framework in Workplace Violence Case In the long-running national debate over whether courts or workers’ compensation agencies should decide coverage disputes, Texas has now drawn...

Issue Commentary: What Forum Decides Exclusivity? Issue Commentary: What Forum Decides Exclusivity?
Aug 7, 2025

Washington Court Rejects Dual Persona Exception to Co-Employee Immunity for Property-Owning Supervisors

The Washington Court of Appeals has rejected a novel attempt to sidestep co-employee immunity under the state’s Industrial Insurance Act, holding that property ownership alone does not establish the “separate...

Washington Court Rejects Dual Persona Exception to Co-Employee Immunity for Property-Owning Supervisors Washington Court Rejects Dual Persona Exception to Co-Employee Immunity for Property-Owning Supervisors
Aug 6, 2025

Louisiana Court Allows “Substantially Certain” Workers’ Compensation Bypass in Lawnmower Injury Case

In a decision that demonstrates Louisiana’s more liberal approach to the “substantially certain” exception to workers’ compensation exclusivity, the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal reversed a trial court’s dismissal...

Louisiana Court Allows “Substantially Certain” Workers’ Compensation Bypass in Lawnmower Injury Case Louisiana Court Allows “Substantially Certain” Workers’ Compensation Bypass in Lawnmower Injury Case

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