Newest Articles

Mar 12, 2026

Virginia Court Counts Subcontractor Workers in Coverage Threshold Case

Small contractors sometimes believe that keeping their payroll lean — two employees instead of three — will keep them outside the reach of the workers’ compensation statute. But the Virginia...

Virginia Court Counts Subcontractor Workers in Coverage Threshold Case Virginia Court Counts Subcontractor Workers in Coverage Threshold Case
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

All Articles

ARCHIVE
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
Aug 2, 2016

Connecticut High Court: Widow’s Bystander Emotional Distress Action Barred by Exclusivity

Earlier today, the Supreme Court of Connecticut released a decision holding that a widow’s bystander emotional distress action filed against her deceased husband’s employer is barred by the exclusive remedy...

Connecticut High Court: Widow’s Bystander Emotional Distress Action Barred by Exclusivity Connecticut High Court: Widow’s Bystander Emotional Distress Action Barred by Exclusivity
Jul 27, 2016

Ohio High Court Says Injury is Not Required to Support Retaliatory Discharge Claim

In a split decision, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that compensability of the alleged underlying injury is not a required element in a retaliatory discharge action under Ohio Rev....

Ohio High Court Says Injury is Not Required to Support Retaliatory Discharge Claim Ohio High Court Says Injury is Not Required to Support Retaliatory Discharge Claim
Jul 7, 2016

New Mexico High Court Strikes Down Farm and Ranch Laborer Exclusion

Decision Continues Long National Trend to Treat Farm Workers on Par With Other Employees A provision of the New Mexico Workers’ Compensation Act (Act) [N.M. Stat. Ann. § 52–1–6(A) (2015)]...

New Mexico High Court Strikes Down Farm and Ranch Laborer Exclusion New Mexico High Court Strikes Down Farm and Ranch Laborer Exclusion
Jun 9, 2016

Florida High Court Strikes Down 104-Week Limitation on TTD Benefits

Earlier today (June 9, 2016), a divided Supreme Court of Florida rendered its long-awaited decision in Westphal v. City of St. Petersburg [No. SC13–1976], striking down as unconstitutional the state’s...

Florida High Court Strikes Down 104-Week Limitation on TTD Benefits Florida High Court Strikes Down 104-Week Limitation on TTD Benefits
Jun 9, 2016

Cautionary Tale: Retaliatory Discharge Statute May Not Protect Employee if Original Comp Claim Was Filed in Another State

A recent federal district court decision from Oregon, Kwiecinski v. Medi-Tech International Corp., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72453 (D. Or., June 3, 2016), provides an important practice point not only...

Cautionary Tale: Retaliatory Discharge Statute May Not Protect Employee if Original Comp Claim Was Filed in Another State Cautionary Tale: Retaliatory Discharge Statute May Not Protect Employee if Original Comp Claim Was Filed in Another State
May 31, 2016

Oklahoma Legislature Can’t Agree on Opt Out Fix

The Oklahoma legislature adjourned last Friday (May 27, 2016), without resolving a bill that would have amended several troublesome provisions of the state’s controversial Employee Injury Benefit Act (“opt out”...

Oklahoma Legislature Can’t Agree on Opt Out Fix Oklahoma Legislature Can’t Agree on Opt Out Fix
May 14, 2016

Does Long-Term Strength of the SSDI Trust Fund Depend Upon Changes to State Workers’ Comp Programs?

Part of SSDI’s Fiscal Weakness Tied to Cost Shifting from Workers’ Compensation In an important recent paper, Professor John Burton and his colleague, Steve Guo, argue that significant fiscal improvements...

Does Long-Term Strength of the SSDI Trust Fund Depend Upon Changes to State Workers’ Comp Programs? Does Long-Term Strength of the SSDI Trust Fund Depend Upon Changes to State Workers’ Comp Programs?
Apr 20, 2016

Oklahoma Supreme Court Lands Yet Another Body Blow to State’s Controversial Opt Out Law

The 2013 Oklahoma workers’ compensation “reforms” 2013 Senate Bill 1062 which, among other things, created the state’s uber-controversial “Opt Out” arrangement, in which employers can jettison the entire state-run system...

Oklahoma Supreme Court Lands Yet Another Body Blow to State’s Controversial Opt Out Law Oklahoma Supreme Court Lands Yet Another Body Blow to State’s Controversial Opt Out Law
Apr 4, 2016

Leahy Bill in U.S. Senate Could Kill Key Provision in Texas Nonsubscriber ERISA Plans

A bill [S. 2506] introduced on February 4, 2016, by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), would, if passed into law, appear to invalidate a core provision found in most Texas workers’...

Leahy Bill in U.S. Senate Could Kill Key Provision in Texas Nonsubscriber ERISA Plans Leahy Bill in U.S. Senate Could Kill Key Provision in Texas Nonsubscriber ERISA Plans
Mar 22, 2016

Virginia Legislature Instructs Appellate Court: Deceased Employees Really Are “Physically Unable to Testify”

On March 11, 2016, Virginia governor McAuliffe signed into law a bill extending the state’s narrow presumption of compensability [Va. Code Ann. § 65.2–105] to cover most claims where the...

Virginia Legislature Instructs Appellate Court: Deceased Employees Really Are “Physically Unable to Testify” Virginia Legislature Instructs Appellate Court: Deceased Employees Really Are “Physically Unable to Testify”
Mar 4, 2016

Does Torres Signal How OK High Court Will Decide Constitutionality of Opt Out?

As I reported on Wednesday, in Torres v. Seaboard Foods, LLC, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma struck down a provision in the state’s workers’ compensation law that disqualifies a claimant...

Does Torres Signal How OK High Court Will Decide Constitutionality of Opt Out? Does Torres Signal How OK High Court Will Decide Constitutionality of Opt Out?
Mar 2, 2016

Oklahoma High Court Strikes Down State’s 180-Day Cumulative Trauma Employment Rule

In Recent “Comp” Decisions (the other from Commission), Oklahoma Legislature Is “0 for 2” A provision in Okla. Stat. tit. 85A, § 2(14) that disqualifies a claimant from recovering for...

Oklahoma High Court Strikes Down State’s 180-Day Cumulative Trauma Employment Rule Oklahoma High Court Strikes Down State’s 180-Day Cumulative Trauma Employment Rule

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