US judge denies bid to block NV mustang roundups
Headline Legal News
A federal judge in Nevada who handed horse protection advocates a rare victory last fall has rejected their latest request to block government roundups of free-roaming mustangs in the West, saying they'll have to go to Congress if they think the animals are being treated inhumanely and need more protection.
U.S. District Judge Howard McKibben granted a temporary restraining order on Aug. 30 that cut short by a day a roundup near the Nevada-Utah line after he determined a helicopter flew too close to a horse in violation of the law.
But he said during a hearing in Reno Thursday that he was denying a new injunction request from the Texas-based Free Wild Horse Federation partly because the Bureau of Land Management has made some positive changes since then. He also said he can't issue injunctions based on speculation about future abuses.
"This court is really not in a position to be the overseer of the BLM," McKibben said. "This court is not going to police all gathers in the U.S. or even all gathers in the district of northern Nevada."
"This Court is not Congress, not an administrative agency. We are not the first branch of government. We are not the second branch. We're here to consider grievances," he said.
His ruling was a disappointment to horse protection advocates who were buoyed by his court order last fall when he took the BLM to task for its actions at the Triple B complex roundup near the Nevada-Utah line northwest of Ely, Nev.
Related listings
-
NY court: Judge can't block $18B Ecuador judgment
Headline Legal News 01/26/2012A judge overstepped his authority when he tried to ban enforcement around the world of an $18 billion judgment against Chevron Inc. for environmental damage in Ecuador, a federal appeals court said Thursday as it explained why it lifted the ban last ...
-
US high court: warrant needed for GPS tracking
Headline Legal News 01/23/2012The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that police must get a search warrant before using GPS technology to track criminal suspects. The ruling represents a serious complication for law enforcement nationwide, which increasingly relies on hi...
-
Pacman Jones pleads guilty to disorderly conduct
Headline Legal News 01/18/2012Cincinnati Bengals cornerback Adam "Pacman" Jones pleaded guilty Wednesday to a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct. Jones entered the plea in Hamilton County Municipal Court just as his non-jury trial was scheduled to begin. A second misdemeano...
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.