Court: Ark. can't stop desegregation funds
Headline Legal News
A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that Arkansas can't cut off funding for desegregation programs in Little Rock-area school districts without a separate hearing and judge's order.
The ruling from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals comes months after U.S. District Judge Brian Miller ordered an end to most of the payments, calling them counterproductive. The appeals court heard the case in September.
The state has been spending about $38 million per year to help finance magnet schools that help keep a racial balance in the Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County school districts, according to Wednesday's ruling, which keeps the money flowing until the matter is resolved in a separate court proceeding.
The state is required by a 1989 settlement to fund magnet schools, transfers between districts and other programs to support desegregation. Lawmakers have long wanted to end the payments, but the districts say they're still necessary.
Battles over school desegregation in Little Rock date back to 1957, when nine black children needed the protection of federal troops to integrate Central High School. Little Rock sued the state and its two neighboring districts in 1982. Two years later, a judge agreed that the districts hadn't done enough to help the city schools desegregate.
Related listings
-
Supreme Court says Manchester property tax data private
Headline Legal News 12/26/2011The Vermont Supreme Court says information used by towns to calculate adjustments to residents' property taxes should remain private. In an entry order published Friday, the court reversed a Bennington County Superior Court ruling that said the town ...
-
Suspect in immigration agent killing held in US
Headline Legal News 12/21/2011An alleged Mexican drug cartel member was arraigned in U.S. federal court Wednesday on murder charges from the roadside ambush of two U.S. immigration agents working south of the border. A spokesman for the U.S. District Court in Washington says Juli...
-
Gingrich assails judges as he courts conservatives
Headline Legal News 12/20/2011As he works to rev up his conservative base in Iowa with just two weeks to go until the state's caucuses, Newt Gingrich is launching a full-throated assault on a reliable GOP target: judges. There is little love for the judicial branch among the Repu...
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.