Ariz. governor on deadline for immigration appeal
Headline Legal News
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer faces a Wednesday deadline for asking the U.S. Supreme Court to accept her appeal of a ruling that put on hold key parts of the state's immigration enforcement law.
The Republican governor lost her first attempt to throw out a district court's decision that blocks, among other portions of the law, a provision requiring police, while enforcing other laws, to question the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally, when a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected her motion in April.
Brewer vowed three months ago to take her argument before the nation's highest court, which has discretion on whether to hear her case.
The 9th Circuit said the federal government is likely to be able to prove the law is unconstitutional and likely to succeed in its argument that Congress has given the federal government sole authority to enforce immigration laws.
Brewer's lawyers have argued that the federal government hasn't effectively enforced immigration law and that the state's intent in passing its own regulations was to assist federal authorities, as Congress has encouraged.
They also have argued the district court judge erred by accepting speculation by the federal government that the law might burden legal immigrants and by concluding the federal government would likely prevail.
Related listings
-
Pozen says Texas court upholds Treximet patents
Headline Legal News 08/09/2011Drug developer Pozen Inc. said Monday that a Texas court upheld three patents supporting its migraine drug Treximet. Pozen said the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas ruled that the patents were valid. The court also found that gen...
-
Lawyer pleads guilty to $47 million Ponzi scheme
Headline Legal News 08/05/2011An Arkansas lawyer and businessman admitted today to staging a Ponzi scheme that netted more than $47 million, a scam that a prosecutor called the largest case of fraud in state history. Kevin Lewis, 43, pleaded guilty today to one count of bank frau...
-
Kansas workers seek to bar immigration questions
Headline Legal News 08/03/2011Workers who filed a class-action lawsuit against a Kansas slaughterhouse for unpaid wages and overtime have asked a federal judge to bar Creekstone Farms Premium Beef from discovering their immigration status during the litigation. The employees have...
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.