In a split decision, a Florida appellate court held that an employee’s injuries sustained while bowling with co-workers during an employer-sponsored event arose out of and in the course of...
Divided Florida Court Says On-the-Clock Bowling Outing Was Not a Recreational Event Divided Florida Court Says On-the-Clock Bowling Outing Was Not a Recreational EventEmployer Balks at Out-of-State MD’s Recommendation of Long-Term Opioid Cocktail That an injured worker’s “Form 50” physician had died and the worker had subsequently moved from Nebraska to Florida did...
Nebraska Employer Need Not Pay for Unauthorized Medical Treatment in Florida Following Worker’s Relocation Nebraska Employer Need Not Pay for Unauthorized Medical Treatment in Florida Following Worker’s RelocationAt about this time each year, I highlight what I think are the ten most important workers’ compensation decisions reported during the calendar year. In some respects, 2019 has been...
Top 10 Workers’ Compensation Cases of 2019 Top 10 Workers’ Compensation Cases of 2019Where an injured worker asserted claims based on additional injuries that he alleged arose from conduct that occurred following his workplace injury (he alleged, inter alia, that after he suffered a...
Alabama Employer’s Actions After Injury Might Result in Tort Liability Alabama Employer’s Actions After Injury Might Result in Tort LiabilityA New York appellate court held yesterday that where an employer raised the issue of labor market attachment at a hearing on the claim and the WCLJ did not make...
Absent Finding of Partial Disability, NY Claimant Need Not Show Attachment to Labor Market Absent Finding of Partial Disability, NY Claimant Need Not Show Attachment to Labor MarketAcknowledging what it called “the Herculean task created by the heightened burden of proof for toxic exposure claims,” yet noting as well that it was for the Florida Legislature, not...
FL Court Laments “Herculean Task” for Claimants in Toxic Exposure Claims FL Court Laments “Herculean Task” for Claimants in Toxic Exposure ClaimsThe 2003 amendment to Minn. Stat. § 604.02, subd. 1, did not overturn a line of Minnesota decisions that had concluded that an employer and a third-party tortfeasor were not...
MN High Court Stands Firm: Employer and Third-Party are NOT “Severally Liable” for Employee's Injuries MN High Court Stands Firm: Employer and Third-Party are NOT “Severally Liable” for Employee's InjuriesConstruing Iowa’s co-employee immunity statute, Iowa Code § 85.20(2), which allows a co-employee to be sued for injuries caused by the co-employee’s “gross negligence amounting to such lack of care...
$7 Million Verdict Against Iowa Co-Employee Cannot Stand $7 Million Verdict Against Iowa Co-Employee Cannot StandStressing that Virginia courts were required to “liberally construe” the state’s Workers’ Compensation Act, but not the evidence in the record before it, the Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed...
Virginia Courts “Liberally Construe” the State’s Act—Not the Evidence Itself Virginia Courts “Liberally Construe” the State’s Act—Not the Evidence ItselfThe U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia recently held that that the removal of plaintiff’s retaliatory discharge action that had been filed in state court was...
Federal Court Says Retaliatory Discharge Action May Not Be Removed Federal Court Says Retaliatory Discharge Action May Not Be RemovedWhere a chicken farm owner—who knew virtually nothing about raising chickens—exercised minimal control over an employee manager of the farm, yet Tyson Farms, Inc., which contracted with the farm owner...
MD Court Says Tyson Was Co-Employer of Worker at Uninsured Chicken Farm MD Court Says Tyson Was Co-Employer of Worker at Uninsured Chicken FarmAffirming a decision of the state’s Commonwealth Court, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recently held that an airline employee who was injured while riding an airport shuttle bus to an...
PA Supreme Court Refuses Narrow Definition of Employer’s “Premises” in Parking Lot Case PA Supreme Court Refuses Narrow Definition of Employer’s “Premises” in Parking Lot Case