High court won't step into Mich. dispute over harness racing
Headline Legal News
The Supreme Court won't step into a dispute between Michigan gaming officials and a group of harness racing drivers over allegations of race-fixing.
The drivers had refused to speak to state investigators without a grant of immunity from prosecution. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that they had a constitutional right to remain silent.
Michigan officials argued that gaming officials did not have to grant immunity before taking action against the drivers. The drivers were never charged with any crimes.
The justices on Monday left in place the appeals court ruling. Harness racing is a form of horse racing.
Related listings
-
Supreme Court's future hangs in the balance in 2016
Headline Legal News 04/01/2016Hillary Clinton said Monday that the future of the Supreme Court would hang in the balance of the 2016 election, warning that Republican front-runner Donald Trump would bring division to the court if he was allowed to shape its future. Clinton said T...
-
Attorney: Court ruling lets Ohio political candidates lie
Headline Legal News 03/28/2016Candidates for public office in Ohio can lie and get away with it under a recent federal court ruling that struck down a state law banning false statements in campaigns, an attorney says. Attorney Donald Brey, who has represented Republicans in cases...
-
Supreme Court will hear Samsung-Apple patent dispute
Headline Legal News 03/21/2016The Supreme Court has agreed to referee a pricy patent dispute between Samsung and Apple. The justices said Monday they will review a $399 million judgment against South Korea-based Samsung for illegally copying patented aspects of the look of...
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.