Kentucky Supreme Court strikes down school choice law
Law Journals
School choice advocates suffered a bitter defeat Thursday, when Kentucky’s Supreme Court struck down a state law that allowed donors to receive tax credits for supporting private school tuition.
In its unanimous decision, the high court said the 2021 measure violated the state’s constitution as the justices upheld a lower court ruling issued more than a year ago.
The law’s opponents objected to using the state tax code to aid private education. The measure’s supporters said tax credits didn’t amount to government spending, even if they decrease revenues.
The measure was narrowly passed by the Republican-dominated legislature over Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear’s veto. It created a form of scholarship tax credits — referred to by supporters as “education opportunity accounts.” Under the measure, private donors backing the accounts would be eligible for tax credits.
The Supreme Court ultimately found that the formula violated the constitution.
“We are compelled to agree that the EOA Act violates the plain language of Section 184” of the state constitution, Deputy Chief Justice Lisabeth T. Hughes said in writing for the court. “Simply stated, it puts the Commonwealth in the business of raising “sum(s) . . . for education other than in common schools.”
Related listings
-
Court rejects appeal by man who killed wife with shotgun
Law Journals 04/30/2021The state supreme court has upheld the murder conviction and 40-year sentence for man who killed his wife with a shotgun blast in their Windham home.The Supreme Judicial Court on Thursday unanimously rejected Noah Gaston’s contention that COVID...
-
South Africa’s ex-president should be jailed, argues lawyer
Law Journals 03/25/2021Lawyers for a commission investigating corruption in South Africa have asked the country’s highest court to jail former president Jacob Zuma for two years for failing to cooperate with its probe. The commission of inquiry into high-level graft,...
-
Thai court gives record 43-year sentence for insulting king
Law Journals 01/21/2021A court in Thailand on Tuesday sentenced a former civil servant to a record prison term of 43 years and six months for breaching the country’s strict law on insulting or defaming the monarchy, lawyers said.The Bangkok Criminal Court found the w...
Workers’ Compensation Subrogation of Administrative Fees and Costs
When a worker covered by workers’ compensation makes a claim against a third party, the workers’ compensation insurance retains the right to subrogate against any recovery from that third party for all benefits paid to or on behalf of a claimant injured at work. When subrogating for more than basic medical and indemnity benefits, the Texas workers’ compensation subrogation statute provides that “the net amount recovered by a claimant in a third‑party action shall be used to reimburse the carrier for benefits, including medical benefits that have been paid for the compensable injury.” TX Labor Code § 417.002.
In fact, all 50 states provide for similar subrogation. However, none of them precisely outlines which payments or costs paid by a compensation carrier constitute “compensation” and can be recovered. The result is industry-wide confusion and an ongoing debate and argument with claimants’ attorneys over what can and can’t be included in a carrier’s lien for recovery purposes.
In addition to medical expenses, death benefits, funeral costs and/or indemnity benefits for lost wages and loss of earning capacity resulting from a compensable injury, workers’ compensation insurance carriers also expend considerable dollars for case management costs, medical bill audit fees, rehabilitation benefits, nurse case worker fees, and other similar fees. They also incur other expenses in conjunction with the handling and adjusting of workers’ compensation claims. Workers’ compensation carriers typically assert, of course, that, they are entitled to reimbursement for such expenditures when it recovers its workers’ compensation lien. Injured workers and their attorneys disagree.