Ohio appeals to Supreme Court on early voting
Headline Legal News
Ohio's election chief on Tuesday appealed a ruling that reinstates the final three early voting days in the battleground state, calling a decision last week by a federal appeals court "an unprecedented intrusion" into how states run elections.
Secretary of State Jon Husted asked the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether the state Legislature or federal courts should set Ohio election laws.
Husted, a Republican, also asked the court to delay the lower court's decision while the Supreme Court decides whether to take the case.
Husted said Friday's decision by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals would affect how elections are run in all 50 states. The appeals court in Cincinnati affirmed a lower court ruling and returned discretion to set hours on the final three days to local boards of elections.
"This ruling not only doesn't make legal sense, it doesn't make practical sense," Husted, a Republican, said in a statement.
He said it opened up the chance for Ohio's 88 county boards of elections to set different rules, while at the same time ordering that all voters be treated the same. Husted said he will be consulting with those boards to craft a directive that sets uniform hours on the three disputed days in the event his appeal isn't successful.
Related listings
-
Justices step back from Pa. court funding dispute
Headline Legal News 09/27/2012The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is declining a request by county governments that the justices force the General Assembly to provide more money for state courts and bring more uniformity to the court system. The court ruled unanimously on Wednesday ag...
-
KC law firm owner faces murder, forgery charges
Headline Legal News 09/12/2012The owner of a Kansas City law firm was indicted Friday on first-degree murder and forgery charges, but authorities would not confirm whether it's related to the 2010 shooting death of the attorney's father. The Jackson County Sheriff's Office said i...
-
Ga. county must $4 million to billboard firm
Headline Legal News 09/07/2012A Georgia county has been ordered to pay more than more than $4 million in damages and attorney fees to a billboard company as part of its ongoing fight to keep billboards out of Atlanta's northern suburbs. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports th...
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.