Tag Archives: reimbursement

Employee’s Medical Bills Not Covered by “Medpay” Provision of Arizona Auto Policy Due to Exclusion for Workers’ Compensation Benefits

Where an employee was injured in a work-related auto accident, incurred $22,000 in medical expenses, a portion of which was paid pursuant to a workers’ compensation claim and the employee recovered $15,000 from a third-party tortfeasor but, under the Arizona … Continue reading

Posted in Case comment | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Employee’s Medical Bills Not Covered by “Medpay” Provision of Arizona Auto Policy Due to Exclusion for Workers’ Compensation Benefits

Texas Insurer Barred from Going After Third-Party Settlement Proceeds

Where a worker’s compensation insurance policy contained a clause in which the carrier waived its right to recover from any third party sued by the injured employee, that clause also prevents the carrier from recovering from the injured employee, once … Continue reading

Posted in Case comment | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Vermont “Volunteer” Driver for Transit Authority is not an Employee

Driver’s Mileage Reimbursement Did not Constitute “Wages” Reimbursement for mileage driven at rates established by the Internal Revenue Service is not “wages” as defined by Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 601(14), held the Supreme Court of Vermont recently in … Continue reading

Posted in Case comment | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Vermont “Volunteer” Driver for Transit Authority is not an Employee

Ohio Auto Insurers: Beware of Nascent Workers Comp Claims

High Court Says BWC Has Subrogation Interest in Spite of Denial of Claim In a decision that should impact settlement procedures in virtually all personal injury cases within the state of Ohio, the Supreme Court of Ohio recently held that … Continue reading

Posted in Case comment | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Ohio Auto Insurers: Beware of Nascent Workers Comp Claims

Eighth Circuit: North Dakota Need Not Substitute Colorado’s More Generous Death Benefits Rules for Claim Filed in the Peace Garden State

In a case of first impression, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a U.S. District Court decision that had dismissed a widow’s civil action seeking a declaration that N.D. Cent. Code § 65–05–05(2)(2013) was invalid and unenforceable under the … Continue reading

Posted in Case comment | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Eighth Circuit: North Dakota Need Not Substitute Colorado’s More Generous Death Benefits Rules for Claim Filed in the Peace Garden State

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

Oregon: AWW Must Include “Subsistence Allowance” and Travel Pay for California Brick Mason

An Oregon appellate court recently affirmed a decision by the state’s Workers’ Compensation Board that concluded claimant’s subsistence and travel pay were “wages” for purposes of determining claimant’s TTD benefits under ORS 656.210(1) [SAIF Corp. v. Sparks, 2013 Ore. App. … Continue reading

Posted in Case comment | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Oregon: AWW Must Include “Subsistence Allowance” and Travel Pay for California Brick Mason

Colorado: Hotels and Restaurants Are Not “Medical Providers”

A Colorado appellate court recently held that hotels and restaurants that a workers’ compensation claimant patronized during authorized travel to obtain treatment by a specialist were not “medical providers” as defined by § 8–42–101(4), C.R.S. (2012). Accordingly, the carrier need … Continue reading

Posted in Case comment | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Colorado: Hotels and Restaurants Are Not “Medical Providers”