Latest News

Case Summaries

Workers' Comp

[11/12] Pratt v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.
In a suit against defendant-employer brought under the Federal Employers' Liability Act and the Locomotive Inspection Act for personal injuries suffered at work, a court order prohibiting defendant-railroad company from compelling plaintiff-employee to attend a medical examination or conducting a disciplinary hearing to terminate plaintiff's employment for refusing to provide it with medical evidence justifying his continued absence from work is affirmed where: 1) the trial court had jurisdiction to prohibit extra-judicial discovery because the civil rules of discovery provide independent authority to grant a protective order for misuse of the discovery process; and 2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding monetary sanctions where the sanctions served not to punish but rather to encourage voluntary compliance with the discovery procedures.

[11/06] B & D Contracting v. Pearley
In a challenge to the amount of an award of disability benefits pursuant to the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Act, employer's petition for review of the award is denied where employer's per diem payments to claimant were properly classified by the Benefits Review Board as wages, and were required to be included in benefit calculations as such.

[10/30] Power Fabricating, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund
In an action for declaratory relief and damages arising from defendant's failure to defend plaintiff in action brought by widow of a worker who was fatally injured in an industrial accident, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) employer liability insurance (ELI) coverage can accrue only if (a) the worker was acting in the course and scope of employment of the insured and (b) workers' compensation law either does not apply to the situation or the employer may be sued in a capacity other than as an employer; and 2) because plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact on any of the conditions required in (b), ELI coverage could not be triggered.

[10/28] Stetzer v. Logistec of Connecticut, Inc.
Decision by defendant-Benefits Review Board regarding award of workers compensation under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. section 901 (2003) is affirmed where: 1) the prior award of benefits was unenforceable because the amount of compensation could not be determined without an additional ruling on disputed evidence that was not before the original administrative law judge; 2) the second law judge properly modified the original benefits award pursuant to 33 U.S.C. section 922; and 3) the court did not review the Board's decision attorney's fees because it was not final.

[10/27] Negrete v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. (Amtrak)
Dismissal of a suit seeking compensation for injuries allegedly suffered by plaintiff while working for defendant, dismissal as a sanction for plaintiff's intentional disregard for discovery deadlines, hiding and tampering with evidence, and lying in his deposition is affirmed.

[10/24] Chubb v. Delaware
In a claim by a state employee for workers' compensation benefits, an Industrial Accident Board finding against claimant is affirmed where: 1) claimant did not show that he had suffered a recurrence of total disability; 2) claimant was not a prima facie displaced worker; and 3) the board committed no legal error by granting the request of the state to offset payments made by the state to claimant.

[10/23] Murray v. Mariner Health
In a workers' compensation case, a constitutional challenge to the statute governing awards of attorney fees in such cases is decided on non-constitutional grounds, fee award is quashed and case remanded where: 1) under the plain language of the relevant statute, a claimant entitled to recover fees is entitled to recover a "reasonable attorney's fee," a term not defined by the statute; and 2) the court's prior decision in Lee Eng'g and Constr. Co. v. Fellows, 209 So. 2d 454, 458 (Fla. 1968) was therefore the controlling law on determination of such fees.

[10/23] Brown v. Cassens Transp. Co.
In an action alleging that defendants employed mail and wire fraud in a scheme to deny plaintiffs worker's compensation benefits under the Michigan Worker's Disability Compensation Act (WDCA), in violation of RICO, as well as raising state law intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) claims, dismissal of the IIED claims is affirmed but dismissal of the RICO claims is reversed where: 1) the WDCA does not preempt their RICO claims; and 2) plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded a pattern of racketeering activity given that reliance is not an element of a civil RICO fraud claim.

More...