Key takeaways from UN court’s ruling on Israel’s war in Gaza

U.S. Court News

Key takeaways from UN court’s ruling on Israel’s war in Gaza

The U.N. world court on Friday came down hard on Israel’s war on Hamas in the Gaza Strip, calling on Israel to “take all measures” to prevent a genocide of the Palestinians. But it stopped short of demanding an immediate cease-fire, as the South African sponsors of the case had hoped.

All sides tried to claim victory with the ruling, seizing on different elements that buttressed their positions.

Israel celebrated the court’s rejection of the cease-fire request and said it had endorsed the country’s right to self-defense. Yet harsh criticism of Israel’s campaign in Gaza could further dent its image in the court of public opinion.

The Palestinians welcomed what amounted to an overwhelming rebuke of Israel’s wartime tactics by a lopsided majority of judges over the heavy death toll and humanitarian disaster in Gaza. The six measures in the ruling were approved by margins of 15-2 and 16-1, with even Israel’s representative on the court joining the majority on two of the questions.

As Israel presses ahead with its offensive, Friday’s ruling adds to the growing international criticism of Israel and could put more pressure on it to scale back or halt the operation altogether.

The court did not rule on the core issue of whether Israel’s devastating military offensive against Hamas amounts to genocide. That question likely won’t be answered by the court for years.

But it did not rule out the possibility that Israel is conducting genocidal acts. In imposing “provisional measures,” the court found that concerns about possible genocide merit further review.

Related listings

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.