Newest Articles

Jan 6, 2025

Iowa Court Affirms Denial of Benefits re: COVID-19 Claim

In Collins v. Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority (DART), 2024 Iowa App. LEXIS 918 (Dec. 18, 2024), the Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed denial of workers’ compensation benefits to...

Iowa Court Affirms Denial of Benefits re: COVID-19 Claim Iowa Court Affirms Denial of Benefits re: COVID-19 Claim
Jan 6, 2025

Nebraska COVID-19 Claim Fails For Want of Expert Medical Evidence

In Spisa-Kline v. Mary Lanning Memorial Hospital, 2024 Neb. App. LEXIS 750 (Dec. 31, 2024), the Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the employer in a workers’ compensation...

Nebraska COVID-19 Claim Fails For Want of Expert Medical Evidence Nebraska COVID-19 Claim Fails For Want of Expert Medical Evidence
Dec 31, 2024

Oregon Jaywalker Might Be Awarded Benefits

Appeals Court Examines Going and Coming Rule The Oregon Court of Appeals has reversed and remanded a Workers’ Compensation Board decision that had denied benefits to a worker injured while...

Oregon Jaywalker Might Be Awarded Benefits Oregon Jaywalker Might Be Awarded Benefits
Dec 30, 2024

NC Court of Appeals Reverses $28.9 Million Tort Judgment

Insurer Had No Duty to Defend Intentional Tort Claim Against Co-Employee In Ortez v. Penn Nat’l Sec. Ins. Co., 2024 N.C. App. LEXIS 1017 (Dec. 17, 2024), the North Carolina...

NC Court of Appeals Reverses $28.9 Million Tort Judgment NC Court of Appeals Reverses $28.9 Million Tort Judgment

All Articles

ARCHIVE
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
Oct 23, 2013

Illinois: Excess Coverage Policies Enjoy Same Exclusion From Guaranty Fund “Cap” on Payment as Primary Coverage Policies

Like every other state, Illinois has established an insolvent insurance fund–the Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund–that steps in, under appropriate circumstances, to pay claims when an insurance company authorized to transact...

Illinois: Excess Coverage Policies Enjoy Same Exclusion From Guaranty Fund “Cap” on Payment as Primary Coverage Policies Illinois: Excess Coverage Policies Enjoy Same Exclusion From Guaranty Fund “Cap” on Payment as Primary Coverage Policies
Oct 21, 2013

Pennsylvania: Massage Therapy By LPN Held to be Compensable Expense

A Pennsylvania appellate court, reversing a decision of the state’s Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, recently held that since a licensed practical nurse (LPN) was a “health care provider” under §...

Pennsylvania: Massage Therapy By LPN Held to be Compensable Expense Pennsylvania: Massage Therapy By LPN Held to be Compensable Expense
Oct 15, 2013

Wyoming: Employee’s Intentional Tort Action Against Supervisors Fails

Construing the intentional injury exception to the exclusive remedy provisions of the Wyoming Workers’ Compensation Act [Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27–14–104(a) (LexisNexis 2013)], the state’s Supreme Court recently affirmed a...

Wyoming: Employee’s Intentional Tort Action Against Supervisors Fails Wyoming: Employee’s Intentional Tort Action Against Supervisors Fails
Oct 13, 2013

Louisiana: Boilermaker’s 39-Day Work Schedule, With One Day Off, Found to Cause Stroke

In Louisiana, when an employee seeks to recover workers’ compensation benefits for a heart-related or perivascular injury, he or she must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that: (i) The...

Louisiana: Boilermaker’s 39-Day Work Schedule, With One Day Off, Found to Cause Stroke Louisiana: Boilermaker’s 39-Day Work Schedule, With One Day Off, Found to Cause Stroke
Oct 8, 2013

U.S. Supreme Court Will Not Hear Hutterite Colony’s Religious Exclusion Argument

Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court indicated that it would not hear a Montana Hutterite Colony’s argument that a 2009 amendment to a state statute [§ 39–71–307, MCA] violated the...

U.S. Supreme Court Will Not Hear Hutterite Colony’s Religious Exclusion Argument U.S. Supreme Court Will Not Hear Hutterite Colony’s Religious Exclusion Argument
Oct 1, 2013

Alabama: Work-Product Rule Protects Post-Injury Accident Report from Discovery

Last Friday, a divided Supreme Court of Alabama, applying the work-product rule, determined that a post-accident investigation report, conducted and prepared by an employer’s safety director and a co-worker and...

Alabama: Work-Product Rule Protects Post-Injury Accident Report from Discovery Alabama: Work-Product Rule Protects Post-Injury Accident Report from Discovery
Sep 29, 2013

Employers Face Possible Liability in “Pretaliatory” Discharge Cases

The great majority of jurisdictions that have dealt with the issue, either by decision or statute, recognize the tort of retaliatory discharge for filing a workers compensation claim [see Larson’s...

Employers Face Possible Liability in “Pretaliatory” Discharge Cases Employers Face Possible Liability in “Pretaliatory” Discharge Cases
Sep 27, 2013

CT: Commissioner’s Decision That Waiver of Comp Benefits Was Not Supported by Consideration Upheld by State Supreme Court

In a decision officially to be released on Tuesday (October 1), the Supreme Court of Connecticut has affirmed a decision of the state’s Workers’ Compensation Review Board that in turn...

CT: Commissioner’s Decision That Waiver of Comp Benefits Was Not Supported by Consideration Upheld by State Supreme Court CT: Commissioner’s Decision That Waiver of Comp Benefits Was Not Supported by Consideration Upheld by State Supreme Court
Sep 27, 2013

6th Circuit Bounces RICO Suit Against Sedgwick & Coca-Cola

A divided en banc panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a decision by a three-judge panel of the same Circuit Court that had allowed a RICO...

6th Circuit Bounces RICO Suit Against Sedgwick & Coca-Cola 6th Circuit Bounces RICO Suit Against Sedgwick & Coca-Cola
Sep 19, 2013

Illinois: Wrongful Death Action Against Employer Alleging “Dual Capacity” Fails

Extensively quoting from Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law and reiterating the state’s two-prong test to invoke the so-called “dual capacity doctrine” as an exception to the exclusive remedy provided by the...

Illinois: Wrongful Death Action Against Employer Alleging “Dual Capacity” Fails Illinois: Wrongful Death Action Against Employer Alleging “Dual Capacity” Fails
Sep 18, 2013

Ohio: Injured Employee Settles 3rd Party Claim for $15,000, Owes Subrogated Employer $61,000

In Ohio, like most jurisdictions, an employer or carrier that provides an injured worker with workers’ compensation benefits enjoys a subrogation interest, to the extent of such payment, in any...

Ohio: Injured Employee Settles 3rd Party Claim for $15,000, Owes Subrogated Employer $61,000 Ohio: Injured Employee Settles 3rd Party Claim for $15,000, Owes Subrogated Employer $61,000
Sep 14, 2013

Illinois: Workers’ Comp’s “Traveling Employee” Rule May Not Be Expanded to Tort Arena

Under workers’ compensation law’s so-called “going and coming” rule, for an employee having fixed hours and place of work, injuries sustained en route to or from the workplace are generally...

Illinois: Workers’ Comp’s “Traveling Employee” Rule May Not Be Expanded to Tort Arena Illinois: Workers’ Comp’s “Traveling Employee” Rule May Not Be Expanded to Tort Arena

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.