What Do You Think? Can adjusting a safety guard on a piece of equipment ever constitute an intentional act, thus exposing an employer to personal injury claims? A case involving a worker for a box […]
What Do You Think? Does two plus two ever equal two? In Illinois, it may. Illinois employers and workers compensation carriers need to know about the “the two physicians” rule. A recent case involving a […]
Federal Focus When a Treasury Department criminal investigator experienced physical symptoms after witnessing fellow law enforcement officers shoot an armed suspect during an on-duty law enforcement encounter, ECAB found sufficient evidence that the claimed employment […]
Case File Because substantial credible evidence supported the compensation judge's finding that the work injury exacerbated the worker's knee symptoms, the Appellate Division affirmed an award of medical and temporary disability benefits. Case Munoz v. […]
State Snapshot BASIC RULE In Alaska, workers’ compensation is an employee’s sole legal remedy for a work-related injury. Alaska Statutes § 23.30.055. This is the “exclusiveness of liability” provision (or “exclusive liability” provision). The rule […]
Case File The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine held that eligibility for workers' compensation death benefits hinges on dependency at the time of the injury, not at the time of death. Because the statute does […]
Case File A worker's hand was crushed by a 2,500-pound check valve during a plant turnaround project. Could he avoid Louisiana workers' compensation exclusivity by alleging an intentional tort and suing the plant owner? Case […]
Case File An Oregon worker injured in a collision with an ODOT snowplow could not pursue a negligence claim against the state despite arguing that the statutory bar violated the Oregon Constitution's Remedy Clause. The […]