Monthly Archives: June 2012

Arkansas: Only Partial Offset of Claimant’s Disability Benefits By Retirement Benefits Allowed

Posted on June 30, 2012 by Thomas A. Robinson

Workers’ compensation, unemployment compensation, nonoccupational sickness and disability insurance, and old age and survivors’ and disability insurance are all based upon a common principle and a common operative fact: wage loss. Generally, the cause of the wage loss dictates the … Continue reading →

Posted in Case comment | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Arkansas: Only Partial Offset of Claimant’s Disability Benefits By Retirement Benefits Allowed

Oregon: Police Lieutenant’s Injuries During Coffee Break Are Compensable

Posted on June 29, 2012 by Thomas A. Robinson

On Wednesday, the Court of Appeals of Oregon, in McDermed v. City of Eugene, 2012 Ore. App. LEXIS 796 (June 27, 2012), affirmed an award of workers’ compensation benefits to a police lieutenant who sustained injuries when she was struck … Continue reading →

Posted in Case comment | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Oregon: Police Lieutenant’s Injuries During Coffee Break Are Compensable

Ohio: Unpaid Work for Wife’s Business Warranted Forfeiture of Benefits, But Not Finding of Fraudulent Activity

Posted on June 21, 2012 by Thomas A. Robinson

The Supreme Court of Ohio, affirming a decision of a lower level appellate court, recently held that while a claimant could not receive temporary total disability (TTD) benefits for any period in which he or she worked [Ohio Rev. Code … Continue reading →

Posted in Case comment | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Ohio: Unpaid Work for Wife’s Business Warranted Forfeiture of Benefits, But Not Finding of Fraudulent Activity

Missouri: Survivors May Proceed in Tort Against Uninsured Employer After Recovering Workers’ Compensation Benefits From Statutory Employer–No Election of Remedies Problem

Posted on June 16, 2012 by Thomas A. Robinson

In a 4–3 decision, the Supreme Court of Missouri recently reversed the decision of a state trial court that earlier had held a workers’ compensation award against a statutory employer barred a wrongful death claim against the deceased employee’s uninsured … Continue reading →

Posted in Case comment | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Missouri: Survivors May Proceed in Tort Against Uninsured Employer After Recovering Workers’ Compensation Benefits From Statutory Employer–No Election of Remedies Problem

Virginia: Non-Dependent Relative of Deceased Worker Caught in Catch-22

Posted on June 15, 2012 by Thomas A. Robinson

In the vast majority of states, non-dependent relatives of employees who suffer fatal work-related injuries are caught in a Catch-22. Since most state acts limit workers’ compensation death benefits to dependents, they don’t qualify. Yet, based upon the wording of … Continue reading →

Posted in Case comment | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Virginia: Non-Dependent Relative of Deceased Worker Caught in Catch-22

Maryland: Supervisor May Be Sued By Co-Employee re: Parking Lot Vehicular Accident

Posted on June 8, 2012 by Thomas A. Robinson

All but four states (Arkansas, Missouri, Maryland, Vermont, plus the Virgin Islands) extend immunity from tort liability not only to the employer, but co-employees, at least as long as the co-employee is acting within the course and scope of his … Continue reading →

Posted in Case comment | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Maryland: Supervisor May Be Sued By Co-Employee re: Parking Lot Vehicular Accident

US: 2010 Statutory Amendment Spelled “Certain” Demise of Oklahoma’s “Substantially Certain” Rule in Intentional Injury Actions Against Employers

Posted on June 6, 2012 by Thomas A. Robinson

An important exception to the exclusive remedy rule relates to intentional injury inflicted by the employer on an employee. Several legal theories have been advanced to support the exception. The best is that the employer will not be heard to … Continue reading →

Posted in Case comment | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on US: 2010 Statutory Amendment Spelled “Certain” Demise of Oklahoma’s “Substantially Certain” Rule in Intentional Injury Actions Against Employers