Court lets part of organic-milk case proceed
Headline Legal News
A federal appeals court says a group of dairy consumers can proceed with parts of a lawsuit alleging that several national retailers and an organic dairy company falsely labeled the dairy's milk.
Aurora Organic Dairy, based in Boulder, Colo., is the nation's largest provider of store-brand organic milk.
Customers sued Aurora and retailers including Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Wild Oats Markets Inc., Target Corp. and Costco Wholesale Corp., claiming Aurora's milk was misleadingly labeled. The appeals court blocked their claims that Aurora is not an organic dairy because the certification remains in effect.
But ruling requires the trial court to hear claims that the milk isn't produced in the kinds of farms the labels describe.
Related listings
-
Menzer & Hill, P.A. Announces Investigation
Headline Legal News 09/09/2010e Securities Arbitration Firm of Menzer & Hill, P.A. Announces Investigation Into The Sales Practices Of Broker-Dealers That Solicited Purchases of Inverse and Leveraged Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs) The Securities Arbitration Firm of Menzer &...
-
Doctor charged in Jackson's death due in court
Headline Legal News 08/23/2010The doctor charged in Michael Jackson's death is due back in court for a scheduling hearing that will determine when prosecutors will publicly present some of their evidence.Dr. Conrad Murray is required to attend Monday's hearing, during which a Los...
-
Paralegal, husband indicted in $1 million law-firm embezzlement
Headline Legal News 08/17/2010A paralegal and her husband have been indicted on suspicion of embezzling more than $1 million from the law firm where she worked.The suspects are Rosanne and Michael Stogner. A grand jury indicted them this month in a series of thefts from Oaxaca, B...
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.