FindLaw | Find a Lawyer. Find Answers.

Library Search

• Without A Subrogation Statute, Previous Subrogation Settlements Come Under Attack ( July 2006 )
  

  In 2001, the Ohio Supreme Court declared unconstitutional and invalid the workers' compensation subrogation statute found under 4123.931 of the Ohio Revised Code. As a result of that decision, questions were raised concerning prior settlements reached with the Bureau of Workers' Compensation under the old statute. In particular, under the old statute personal injury plaintiffs saw part of their monetary settlements paid back to the Bureau of Workers' Compensation to cover both present and future medical costs and disability benefits.

• The Many Faces of Workers' Compensation Subrogation ( July 2006 )
  

  More than any other area of personal injury subrogation, workers' compensation subrogation is often fraught with traps and pitfalls for the unwary subrogation professional. This is primarily because most subrogation professionals assume that workers' compensation subrogation is fairly similar from one state to the next. Every state, except one , allows for workers' compensation subrogation. That is where the similarities end. In truth, there are very few areas in which the laws of each individual state vary more and are applied as differently, than in the area of workers’ compensation subrogation.

• Workplace Injury Intentional Torts ( March 1996 )
  

  Like mushrooms, intentional tort lawsuits over workplace injuries survive legislation to eradicate them and crop up in unexpected states with historically strong workers compensation employer immunity. Witness the recent case of Theresa Birklid v. The Boeing Company in Washington state. Never in 70 years had that state's Supreme Court allowed a workplace injury to trigger a successful tort case against the employer; only intended physical assaults by co-workers led to civil liability beyond the exclusive remedy of workers' compensation benefits. Employees, even when injured by employers' gross negligence of removing guards (without intending to assault or hurt a specific employee), were shut out from seeking civil injury tort case compensation against their employers.

• Employee Can Sue for Workplace Harassment Despite Signing a Workers' Comp Release ( February 2005 )
  

  When employers settle workers' comp claims they frequently attempt to have the employees sign a comprehensive release form that releases "all claims and causes of action." But can such a release for a single workers' comp injury claim also release any and all claims that fall outside the workers' compensation system?

• Failure to Follow Lockout Procedures Triggers Ohio Workplace Civil Liability ( February 2003 )
  

  To prove an intentional workplace tort for civil employer liability in Ohio, a worker must show that the employer 1) had knowledge of a workplace hazardous task or process, 2) had knowledge that if a worker carried out the hazardous task, that injury to the worker would be a "substantial certainty" and 3) despite having this knowledge, the employer still "required" the worker to perform the dangerous task.

• The Outer Limits of Workers' Compensation ( January 2005 )
  

  Three recent appellate court cases test the reach of workers' com-pensation trade-off protections for workers and immunity for employers.

• Texas Reforms Its Workers' Compensation System ( August 2005 )
  

  On June 1, 2005, Governor Rick Perry signed House Bill 7 (HB7), which provides for sweeping changes to the workers’ compensation system in the state of Texas. Prompted by an outdated, expensive system that did little to encourage injured employees to return to work, HB7 contains a number of major changes that will affect the way employee injuries are handled in Texas.

• Even Birthday Spanking Injuries Can Be Covered by the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Act ( October 2004 )
  

  Many states have developed workers compensation systems entitling employees to receive compensation for workplace injuries, regardless of fault, which also allow employers to know what liability they face for such injuries. In keeping with that purpose, Minnesota has been willing to find most injuries that occur in the workplace to be covered under its Workers Compensation Act ("WCA"). Indeed, based upon these principles, the Minnesota Supreme Court recently barred an employee claim for injuries resulting from a "birthday spanking" against an employer and, in the process, reaffirmed Minnesota's broad definition of injuries covered by the WCA.