Thai court asked to rule if prime minister must step down
U.S. Court News
Thailand’s Constitutional Court on Monday received a petition from opposition lawmakers seeking a ruling on whether Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha has reached the legal limit on how long he can remain in office.
The petition, signed by 171 members of the House of Representatives, asks the nine-member court to rule on an article in the constitution limiting prime ministers to eight years in office.
The court is widely expected to announce on Wednesday whether it will rule on the petition. It is uncertain whether the court, if it accepts the case, would temporarily suspend Prayuth from his duties until it issues a ruling.
At issue is the date that should be used in determining how long he has been in office. Prayuth, then army commander, seized power in May 2014 after toppling an elected government in a military coup. He led a ruling junta and was installed as prime minister on Aug. 24, 2014, under a provisional post-coup constitution. His critics and several legal experts contend this means he will complete eight years in office on Tuesday.
His supporters say the country’s current constitution, which contains the provision limiting prime ministers to eight years, came into effect on April 6, 2017, and that should be used as the starting date. An even more generous interpretation is that the countdown began on June 9, 2019, when Prayuth took office under the new constitution following a 2019 general election.
Related listings
-
Probation for woman who wiped up blood after killing spouse
U.S. Court News 08/07/2022A Florida woman who was acquitted of murdering her husband, a prominent official at the University of Central Florida, was sentenced Friday to a year of probation for tampering with evidence.A judge sentenced Danielle Redlick in state court in Orland...
-
DOJ: Lawsuit should proceed over town’s police fines
U.S. Court News 08/01/2022The Justice Department is urging a federal judge to let a class-action lawsuit go forward against an Alabama town accused of policing for profit with excessive fines and aggressive enforcement of local laws.The U.S. attorney’s office this week ...
-
Ex-cop Kueng gets 3 years for violating Floyd’s rights
U.S. Court News 07/27/2022Former Minneapolis police Officer J. Alexander Kueng was sentenced Wednesday in federal court to three years in prison for violating George Floyd’s civil rights during the May 2020 killing.Kueng’s co-defendant Tou Thao was scheduled to be...
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.