Miss high court hears challenge to Barbour pardons
Headline Legal News
Feuding attorneys asked the Mississippi Supreme Court on Thursday to determine the validity of pardons that Haley Barbour gave to convicted killers and other convicts during his final days as governor.
Chief Justice Bill Waller Jr. said the court would not rule Thursday, but he didn't say when a decision would come.
"We want them to take enough time to do it right," said Randy Walker, who objects to the pardons. Walker was shot in the head in 1993 by one of the men Barbour set free last month. That former inmate, David Gatlin, also fatally shot his own estranged wife as she held the couple's baby.
At the heart of the dispute is Section 124 of the Mississippi Constitution, which says "no pardon shall be granted" by the governor until the convicted felon applying for the pardon publishes notice of that application for 30 days in a newspaper in or near the county where the crime was committed.
Justices could uphold the pardons, as requested by a private attorney representing Republican Barbour. Or they could declare the pardons invalid, as requested by Democratic Attorney General Jim Hood. If they agree with Hood that the 30-day publication is a must, they could send the pardons back to a lower court, where a circuit judge could hold a trial to determine whether the pardons met those requirements.
Related listings
-
Utah high court to hear posthumous benefits case
Headline Legal News 02/07/2012Utah's Supreme Court is deciding whether a sperm donor contract is proof that a man wanted to be a father, even after his death. The question stems from a dispute between Gayle Burns and the Social Security Administration, which denied survivor benef...
-
Magnet Toy Class Action Settlement
Headline Legal News 02/04/2012On December 15, 2011, the Honorable Susan D. Wigenton, U.S.D.J., granted final approval of a class action settlement in the lawsuit Chris Doering, et al. v. MEGA Brands, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 2:08-CV-1750 (SDW) (MCA). Defendants MEGA B...
-
Miss. high court takes ex-gov pardons case
Headline Legal News 02/03/2012The Mississippi Supreme Court said Wednesday it will take up the legal challenge to the pardons ex-Gov. Haley Barbour gave out in his last days in office. State Attorney General Jim Hood, a Democrat, wants to invalidate dozens of the 198 pardons that...
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.