NY Court: Somewhat Inconsistent Statements Related to Third-Party Action Was not § 114-a Violation

Virginia Claimant Did Not Violate Known Safety Rule in Connection with Injury

Construing Virginia’s intentional violation of a known safety rule statute [Va. Code § 65.2-306(A)], a state appellate court affirmed an award of workers’ compensation benefits to an employee who sustained...

Safety Violation Cannot Be Imputed to Kentucky Temporary Staffing Company

Lamenting that under the plain wording of Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.165(1), a temporary staffing company can only be liable for the special 30 percent enhancement of workers’ compensation benefits...

SD Supreme Court Stresses Fault and Negligence Have No Role in Workers’ Comp Disputes

Cautioning that the analysis of the case by the state’s Department of Labor had come “perilously close to the prohibited concept of contributory negligence or fault,” the Supreme Court of...

NY Employer’s Quick Firing After Employee’s Injury Was Retaliatory

A New York appellate court affirmed a determination by the state’s Workers’ Compensation Board that an employer violated N.Y. Workers’ Comp. Law § 120 — the state’s anti-retaliation statute —...

Idaho High Court Does “a 180”: Employees May Sue Employers for Reckless Conduct

Reversing itself (in relevant part), a divided Supreme Court of Idaho cast aside a year-old decision and, after re-argument, adopted what amounts to a reckless standard in so-called “intentional” tort...

Virginia Worker’s “Short-Cut” Results in Denial of Benefits

Violation of Known Safety Rule Prevents Recovery for Injuries A decision to enter a fenced area at the employer’s facility through an unapproved opening, instead of through the approved interlock...

$841,200 Fine Against Small Colorado Employer Was Unconstitutionally Excessive

While upholding the facial constitutionality of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8–43–409, which provides for the imposition of fines against certain employers that fail to maintain workers’ compensation insurance, a Colorado...