.png)
Publications
Risk of exposure to COVID-19 at employer’s poultry processing plant was not distinct from that attending employment in general.
Mr. Fowler alleged that he suffered a compensable COVID-19 exposure while working as a “boxer” at a poultry processing plant.
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 27, No.
Section 112.1816(2) does not bar entitlement to death benefits under Florida’s workers’ compensation statute Section 440.16.
The claimant’s husband, a firefighter, died of brain cancer.
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 27, No.
Allowing your manager to “pop” your back at the end of a long shift is not an injury that arose out of employment.
The claimant had worked a 17-hour shift with little to no breaks. When his manager arrived, he complained of back pain, and then he allowed the manager to “pop” his back to relieve his pain. He then went home.
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 27, No.
Appellate Division affirms denial of insurer’s motion to dismiss for lack of coverage and affirms finding that petitioner was in course and scope of employment.
The petitioner was the owner and employee of the respondent, a structural steel company. It was noted that about 60% of the petitioner’s work involved traveling for projects and preparing estimates.
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 27, No.
Appellate Division affirms summary judgment against employer due to the exclusive remedy provision of the Act and affirms summary judgment, in part, to an insurance carrier in excluding coverage for intentional wrong claims.
In the first of these two cases (No. A-1702-21), the Appellate Division affirmed an order granting summary judgment to Bravo Pack (Bravo), dismissing all claims, cross-claims, and third party claims against Bravo.
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 27, No.
A decision granting a claim petition, but not awarding wage loss benefits, was supported by substantial competent evidence and, therefore, cannot be disturbed on appeal.
The claimant, a certified nurse assistant, filed a claim petition alleging multiple work injuries, which occurred on January 14, 2020, while she was attempting to move a 300-pound patient.
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 27, No.
Temporary total disability benefits were properly reinstated as of the date claimant filed a Protz constitutional challenge, and exceptional circumstances did not exist to allow for a reinstatement as of the date of the original IRE.
The claimant sustained a work injury in May 2007. Subsequently, the status of his benefits was changed from total to partial based on a December 2, 2010, IRE that found he had an 8% whole-person impairment.
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 27, No.
State Officials’ ADA Liability Under the 11th Amendment
In the recent case, Durham v. Kelley, 82 F.4th 217 (3d Cir.
Legal Updates for Employment Law – October 25, 2023, has been prepared for our re
New Guidance from Pennsylvania’s Superior Court for Establishing Factual Basis to Transfer Venue
Since the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s August 25, 2022, order changed the venue rules in medical malpractice cases—from requiring that cases be filed “only in a county in which the cause of action arose” to applying the same venue standards tha
Legal Updates for Health Care Liability – October 17, 2023, has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey.