Scottish leader calls for new independence vote next year
U.S. Court News
Scotland’s leader told lawmakers in Edinburgh Tuesday that she plans to hold a fresh referendum on Scotland’s independence on Oct. 19, 2023 — even though U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson maintains it wasn’t the right time for such a vote.
First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said the question to be asked will be the same as that in Scotland’s first independence vote in 2014: “Should Scotland be an independent country?”
The U.K.-wide government of Johnson opposes a new referendum and has repeatedly said the issue was settled in 2014, when 55% saying they wanted to remain part of the United Kingdom.
Scotland’s government requires a special order from Johnson to legally hold a referendum.
Sturgeon said she will ask the U.K. Supreme Court to rule on the Scottish government’s right to hold the vote if Johnson does not give the go-ahead.
Scotland’s most senior law official has referred the matter to the top court on Tuesday, she said.
She added that she would be writing to Johnson to inform him of her plans.
Sturgeon, who leads the Scottish National Party and the devolved government in Scotland, insists it’s time to revisit the matter of independence, not least because of Britain’s exit from the European Union — a move opposed by a majority of Scots.
Related listings
-
US judge dismisses Cristiano Ronaldo rape lawsuit in Vegas
U.S. Court News 06/13/2022A Nevada woman has lost her bid in a U.S. court to force international soccer star Cristiano Ronaldo to pay millions of dollars more than the $375,000 in hush money she received after claiming he raped her in Las Vegas in 2009.U.S. District Judge Jen...
-
Abortion rights protesters rally in cities around US
U.S. Court News 05/07/2022Abortion rights protesters rallied in cities around the United States on Saturday, vowing to fight to ensure that abortion remains a legal option for women nationwide.Hundreds gathered in Chicago, Atlanta, Houston and other cities days after a draft ...
-
New York court rejects congressional maps drawn by Democrats
U.S. Court News 04/29/2022New York’s highest court on Wednesday rejected new congressional maps that had widely been seen as favoring Democrats, largely agreeing with Republican voters who argued the district boundaries were unconstitutionally gerrymandered.The decision...
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.