Court agrees to review Alaska Roadless Rule case
Headline Legal News
A full federal appeals court will review the decision allowing Alaska's Tongass National Forest to be exempt from federal restrictions on road-building and timber harvests in "roadless" areas."
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday announced an 11-member panel will review a split decision rendered by a three-judge panel in March, which said the U.S. Department of Agriculture had legitimate grounds in 2003 to temporarily exempt the Tongass from the Roadless Rule.
Earthjustice attorney Tom Waldo said by phone from Juneau that the decision was great news for residents of southeast Alaska.
"This case is about the wild and undeveloped part of the Tongass, which are really important for hunting, fishing, tourism and recreation," he said. "These are the driving forces of the local economy, and today's order ensures that those places will remain protected until the court can give the issue a thorough review."
"Today's decision is extremely disappointing," said Sharon Leighow, spokeswoman for Gov. Sean Parnell. "It was the state's position that this case did not meet the criteria for a rehearing and was properly decided by the three-judge panel."
"As a result of today's ruling, the status of the Roadless Rule in the Tongass will remain in doubt well into 2015, further harming the economy in Southeast Alaska," she said in a statement.
Related listings
-
Washington high court to hear charter school case
Headline Legal News 08/19/2014The Washington Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether the state's voter-approved charter school law violates the state constitution. Oral arguments concerning the lawsuit brought by charter school opponents have been scheduled for the afternoon...
-
Appeals court OKs permits for Upper Peninsula mine
Headline Legal News 08/13/2014The Michigan Court of Appeals has upheld a decision by state environmental regulators to allow construction of a nickel and copper mine in the Upper Peninsula. A three-judge panel unanimously sided with the Department of Environmental Quality, which ...
-
US Supreme Court lets Equifax tax ruling stand
Headline Legal News 07/01/2014The U.S. Supreme Court said Monday that it won't hear an appeal from credit bureau Equifax Inc. involving what it considered an adverse tax ruling in Mississippi. The appeal was a reaction to a 2013 Mississippi Supreme Court decision that Equifax had...
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.