NCCI Court Case Update

Exclusive remedy—providing immunity to employers from employee tort suits for work-related injuries covered by WC—has been a closely watched topic among WC stakeholders for several years. In 2025, we reported on decisions addressing applicability and exceptions to exclusive remedy.

• Illinois—Exclusive Remedy Under the Occupational Diseases Act, Martin v. Goodrich Corp. (Supreme Court of Illinois)
• Maryland—Applicability of Exclusive Remedy to Lawsuit Brought by a Nondependent, Ledford v. Jenway Contracting, Inc. (Supreme Court of Maryland)
• Washington—Intentional Injury Exception, Cockrum v. C.H. Murphy/Clark-Ullman, Inc. (Supreme Court of Washington)

With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, NCCI began monitoring COVID-19 cases that could have implications for the WC system. The cases reported on to date, including in 2025, have dealt with issues surrounding compensability from the alleged contraction of COVID-19 at work, or the application of exclusive remedy where employees contract COVID-19 and sue their employers in tort.

• Iowa—Exclusive Remedy Defense for Coworkers and Employers, Mehmedovic v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (Iowa Supreme Court)
• New York—Compensability for Emotional Stress Injuries From Exposure to COVID-19, In the Matter of the Claim of Kimberly McLaurin v. New York City Transit Authority (New York Court of Appeals)
• West Virginia—COVID-19 as Occupational Disease, Foster v. Primecare Medical of West Virginia, Inc. (Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia)

In the last decade, many states have enacted laws that create WC presumptions that certain injuries or diseases suffered by first responders arise in the course and scope of employment. In 2025, NCCI reported on the following cases that considered issues surrounding the application of first responder presumption laws.

• Arizona—Applicability of First Responder Cancer Presumption Statute, Krol v. The Industrial Commission of Arizona (The Supreme Court of Arizona)
• Nevada—First Responder Presumption and Predisposing Factors, CCMSI v. Odell (Court of Appeals of Nevada)

Marijuana legalization at the state and federal levels, and the potential implications for WC, has been a hot topic for several years. Considerations related to legalization of marijuana are likely to be ongoing in 2026 as stakeholders monitor whether the federal government will move forward with the reclassification of marijuana from schedule I to schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act. In 2025, NCCI reported on an appellate court decision addressing the issue of WC reimbursement for CBD oil.

• Pennsylvania—CBD Oil Reimbursement, Schmidt v. Schmidt, Kirifides and Rassias, PC (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania)

This year, courts have reviewed questions related to attorney fees in WC cases. Some of these cases have considered the application of attorney fee statutes and their constitutionality.

• Alabama—Constitutional Challenge to Attorney Fee Cap, Carter-Shepherd v. Royal Furniture Co. (Alabama Court of Civil Appeals)
• Maryland—Attorney Fees Lien, Zukowski v. Anne Arundel County (Supreme Court of Maryland)
• New Mexico—Constitutional Challenge to Attorney Fees Statute, Pena v. State of New Mexico (Supreme Court of New Mexico)
• New Mexico—Meaning of “Single Accidental Injury” When Calculating Attorney Fees, Hanrahan v. State of New Mexico (Supreme Court of New Mexico)

Across the states, courts remained engaged in cases that could impact the WC system and its stakeholders. These cases addressed issues such as benefit calculations, jurisdictional and procedural requirements, and payments to medical providers, among others.

Northeastern Zone Cases

• Connecticut—Discretion to Award Temporary Partial Incapacity Benefits, Gardner v. Dept. of Mental Health & Addiction Services (Supreme Court of Connecticut)
• Pennsylvania—Recovering Overpayments From Medical Providers, Pioneer Construction Co. v. Insight Pharmaceuticals, LLC (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania)

Southeastern Zone Cases

• Florida—Calculation of a WC Insurer’s Lien Amount, Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Lee (Sixth District Court of Appeal of Florida)
• Florida—Requirement to Seek Initial Relief Within the WC System, Steak ‘N Shake, Inc. v. Spears (Fifth District Court of Appeal of Florida)
• Florida—Tolling the Statute of Limitations, Murphy v. Polk County Board of County Commissioners (First District Court of Appeal of Florida)
• Florida—Admissibility of Expert Medical Adviser Opinions in WC Proceedings, Sedgwick Claims Management Services v. Thompson (First District Court of Appeal of Florida)

Midwestern Zone Cases

• Iowa—Calculation of Benefits, Den Hartog Industries v. Dungan (Iowa Supreme Court)
• Illinois—Medical Provider Not a Third-Party Beneficiary Under WC Settlement, Midwest Neurosurgeons v. F.W. Electric, Inc. (Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District)
• Minnesota—Standard to Rebut Presumption of Retirement, Simonson v. Douglas County (Supreme Court of Minnesota)
• Missouri—Liability of Second Injury Fund for Occupational Diseases, Treasurer of the State of Missouri v. Penney (Supreme Court of Missouri)

Western Zone Cases

• California—Jurisdiction of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Over Medical Necessity Determinations Disputes, Illinois Midwest Insurance Agency LLC v. WCAB (California Court of Appeals, Second District)
• Hawaii—Rebutting the Presumption of Compensability, Lane v. Avis Budget Group, Inc.​ (Supreme Court of Hawaii)
• Texas—Jurisdiction of the Division of Workers’ Compensation, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley v. Oteka (Supreme Court of Texas)

Share This Article: