High court appears to favor Ala. death row inmate
Headline Legal News
The tale of returned mail and a missed deadline might seem comical, if it did not involve a man trying to stave off execution. Supreme Court justices had harsh words Tuesday for lawyers who abandon their clients and a state legal system that does not seem overly concerned.
At the end of a lively hour of arguments, it appeared that the court would order a new hearing for Alabama death row inmate Cory Maples, who lost the chance to appeal his death sentence because of a mailroom mix-up at the venerable New York law firm Sullivan and Cromwell and the diffidence of a local court clerk.
Two Sullivan and Cromwell lawyers were pressing Maples' claim that his earlier legal representation was so bad that it violated the Constitution -- until they both left the firm without telling Maples or the Alabama courts.
Deadlines usually matter a lot at the Supreme Court, where a few years back a defendant who was late to file an appeal because the judge gave his lawyer the wrong date still lost his case. Another principle to which the court often holds dear is that it's tough luck for defendants whose lawyers make mistakes.
But Tuesday's case, perhaps because it involves the death penalty, was the rare instance when the court seemed prepared to grant some leeway on both counts.
Related listings
-
Court turns away appeal over commandments display
Headline Legal News 10/04/2011The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear the appeal of an Ohio judge wanting to display a poster of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom. The display has been covered with a drape since a federal judge ordered Richland County Common Pleas Ju...
-
High court to decide lawyer immunity question
Headline Legal News 09/27/2011The Supreme Court will decide whether private lawyers hired as outside counsels for governments can be sued. The high court on Tuesday agreed to hear lawyer Steve Filarsky's appeal. He was hired by the city of Rialto, Calif., to investigate the possi...
-
Samsung seeks iPhone, iPad sale ban in Dutch court
Headline Legal News 09/24/2011Samsung asked a Dutch court Monday to slap an injunction on Apple Inc. to prevent it from selling iPhones and iPad tablets in the Netherlands, saying Apple does not have licenses to use 3G mobile technology in the devices. The legal battle is the lat...
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.