Monthly Archives: February 2014

Compromise and Settlement: May An Employer Include a Penalty Clause to Ward Off Further Vexatious Claims?

Each year I read–or at least scan–more than 1,500 workers’ compensation cases that make the appellate reporter system around the nation. As large as that number sounds, it’s really fewer than five per day. And yet, as we all know, … Continue reading

Posted in Case comment, Issue commentary | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Compromise and Settlement: May An Employer Include a Penalty Clause to Ward Off Further Vexatious Claims?

Ohio: Comatose Injured Worker’s Additional Claim for Loss of Vision and Hearing Fails

The Supreme Court of Ohio, reversing an earlier decision by an intermediate appellate court, recently affirmed the state Industrial Commission’s denial of a loss of vision and hearing claim under Ohio’s scheduled injuries provision, Ohio Rev. Code § 4123.57, filed … Continue reading

Posted in Case comment | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Ohio: Comatose Injured Worker’s Additional Claim for Loss of Vision and Hearing Fails

Bariatric Surgery: Is it a Workers’ Compensation Medical Benefit?

Last week, I was very pleased to be a part of an Orlando, Florida risk management conference sponsored by Artex Risk Solutions. Along with two good friends and colleagues, Rebecca (Becki) Shafer, J.D., President of Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc., author … Continue reading

Posted in Issue commentary | Tagged , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Louisiana: Mileage Payment Does Not Bring EMT’s Travel Within the Employment; Going and Coming Rule Bars Claim

In Potier v. Acadian Ambulance Serv., Inc., 2014 La. App. LEXIS 347 (February 12, 2014), a Louisiana appellate court recently affirmed a decision by a state workers’ compensation judge that granted an employer summary judgment, on the basis of the … Continue reading

Posted in Case comment | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Louisiana: Mileage Payment Does Not Bring EMT’s Travel Within the Employment; Going and Coming Rule Bars Claim

NY: Employer Does Not Lose Exclusivity Defense in Contribution/Indemnification Case Because Employee was Undocumented Alien

N.Y. Work. Comp. Law § 11 bars third-party lawsuits for contribution and indemnification against an injured employee’s employer unless either (a) the employee suffered a “grave injury,” limited to death and the exclusive list of disabilities defined in the statute, … Continue reading

Posted in Case comment | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on NY: Employer Does Not Lose Exclusivity Defense in Contribution/Indemnification Case Because Employee was Undocumented Alien

NY Court: No Reopening Allowed in Established Claim re: Murdered Employee

Indicating that in New York there were two requisites for reopening a claim based on newly acquired evidence: (a) the application to reopen “must be made within a reasonable time after the applicant has had knowledge of the facts constituting … Continue reading

Posted in Case comment | Tagged , , | Comments Off on NY Court: No Reopening Allowed in Established Claim re: Murdered Employee

Idaho Shoe Lace Causes Compensable Herniated Disc

In a decision showing just how strongly the state’s workers’ compensation system separates the “arising out of” the employment component of the compensation formula from the “course of employment” component, the Supreme Court of Idaho recently held that a former … Continue reading

Posted in Case comment | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Idaho Shoe Lace Causes Compensable Herniated Disc

Texas Exclusive Remedy Provision Does Not Apply to Health Care Providers

The exclusive remedy provision of Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 408.001(a) does not apply to health care providers, held a Texas appellate court recently, in Hand & Wrist Center of Houston, P.A. v. Maintenance Supply Headquarters, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS … Continue reading

Posted in Case comment | Tagged | Comments Off on Texas Exclusive Remedy Provision Does Not Apply to Health Care Providers