Court rules against White House science office in email case
Law Firm Marketing
A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that work-related emails from a private account used by the White House's top science adviser are subject to disclosure under federal open records laws.
The ruling from the three-judge panel is a win for government watchdog groups and media organizations concerned that public officials may be skirting public disclosure requirements by relying on private email.
The court sided with a conservative think tank that had filed a lawsuit seeking emails from John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. The decision overturns a lower court judge that said Holdren's office did not have to comply with the Freedom of Information Act request from the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Related listings
-
Appeals court rules Mississippi can resume Google inquiry
Law Firm Marketing 04/12/2016Mississippi's attorney general can resume an investigation into whether Google facilitates illegal behavior, an appeals court ruled. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday overturned a district judge who had sided with Google. U.S. District ...
-
Ex-Attorney General McGraw files for Supreme Court race
Law Firm Marketing 02/01/2016Former state Attorney General Darrell McGraw wants one of his old jobs back. According to the West Virginia secretary of state's website, the 79-year-old McGraw filed on Saturday to run for the state Supreme Court. McGraw spent one term on the court ...
-
Ex-Illinois guardsman pleads guilty in Islamic State plot
Law Firm Marketing 12/20/2015A former Illinois National Guard soldier pleaded guilty Monday to charges alleging he conspired to provide material support to the Islamic State group. Hasan Edmonds, 23, of Aurora, Illinois, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to provide mater...
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.