High court to decide lawyer immunity question
Headline Legal News
The 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 possible misuse of sick leave.
Nicholas B. Delia, a firefighter suspected of working on his house while on sick leave, sued Filarsky after the investigation. Delia had said he had bought material to work on his house but never opened it. The fire chief then ordered Delia to bring the unopened material out of his house for inspection or face disciplinary action.
Delia said that order was an unconstitutional warrantless search and sued the city, the fire department and Filarsky.
A federal judge threw it all of Delia's lawsuits out, including the one against Filarsky. The judge ruled that Filarsky had the same immunity as the city's employees.
But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, saying its rulings had never extended to a nongovernment worker the same immunity government workers enjoy. A separate appeals court — the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — has extended immunity to nongovernment employees.
Related listings
-
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...
-
Court rules that UBS trader should stay in custody
Headline Legal News 09/22/2011An alleged rogue trader accused of losing Swiss banking giant UBS about $2.3 billion is "sorry beyond words," his lawyer said Thursday, as a judge ordered him to be held in jail until a hearing next month. Kweku Adoboli, 31, is charged with four offe...
-
Guilty plea for Va. man in $318K Social Security fraud
Headline Legal News 09/09/2011A Bristol man has pleaded guilty to stealing Social Security benefits and making false statements in an attempt to hide the thefts. Seventy-one-year-old David Ross entered the plea Thursday in federal court in Abingdon. Ross faces a sentence of up to...
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0096f/0096fc8e9a6fca7cdd0ea81063fccc031be46cea" alt=""
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.