Court: No blanket exemption for police dashcams
Headline Legal News
The state Supreme Court has ruled that state dashboard cameras can't be withheld from public disclosure unless they relate to pending litigation.
Five of the high court's members said Thursday that the Seattle Police Department wrongly used a state statute as a blanket exemption to the state's public records act when it denied providing dashboard camera videos to a reporter with KOMO-TV. Their ruling overturns a 2012 King County Superior Court judge's ruling that said the department could withhold the videos for three years.
The majority awarded KOMO attorney fees and sent the case back to the lower court.
Four justices argued that the statute was clear that that the recordings should not be released to the public until completion of any criminal or civil litigation.
Related listings
-
High court won't hear California's prison appeal
Headline Legal News 06/10/2014The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday let stand a lower court ruling that California bears responsibility for nearly 2,000 disabled parolees housed in county jails. The decision could leave state taxpayers liable for problems at some of the jails, said Je...
-
Supreme Court Says Mich. Can't Block Indian Casino
Headline Legal News 05/30/2014A divided Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that Michigan can't block the opening of an off-reservation American Indian casino because the state's legal challenge is barred by tribal sovereign immunity. In a 5-4 decision, the high court said the state coul...
-
Iran judge summons Facebook CEO to court
Headline Legal News 05/27/2014A judge in southern Iran has ordered Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg to appear in court to answer complaints by individuals who say Facebook-owned applications Instagram and Whatsapp violate their privacy, semiofficial news agency ISNA repor...
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.