Ohio's high court dismisses media lawsuit over bodycam video
Legal Events
The Ohio Supreme Court dismissed a public information lawsuit Tuesday without ruling on its argument that video from police body cameras are public record and should be released on request.
In not taking up the issue, the court noted that the video had already been released — two days after news organizations requested the footage in the July 19, 2015, traffic stop and fatal shooting of a black motorist by a white University of Cincinnati officer.
News organizations including The Associated Press sued Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters last year when he initially refused to release the police bodycam video. Deters released the material after the officer was indicted on charges including murder.
In Tuesday's ruling, Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger wrote that the prosecutor was entitled to review the video first to determine whether any information had to be redacted; she noted that Deters produced the footage six days after he received it.
"We conclude that he responded in a reasonable period of time," she said.
Deters said he was pleased with the decision, saying "it lets the prosecutor do his job to investigate cases before material is released to the media potentially jeopardizing future prosecution."
Attorney Jack Greiner, representing the media groups, called it a narrow decision with little precedent-setting value. He noted it doesn't affect a Dec. 6 ruling by the state Supreme Court that said video footage from police cruiser dash cameras is public record that, with some exceptions, should be promptly released upon request.
Related listings
-
Green Party taking bid for election recount to federal court
Legal Events 12/04/2016Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein is taking her bid for a statewide recount of Pennsylvania's Nov. 8 presidential election to federal court. After announcing Stein and recount supporters were dropping their case in state court, lawyer Jon...
-
Justice Thomas: Honor Scalia by reining in government
Legal Events 11/18/2016Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is calling fellow conservatives to continue the work of the late Justice Antonin Scalia to keep the power of the courts and other branches of government in check. Thomas tells 1,700 people at a dinner in honor of...
-
UK court brings Brexit plans screeching to halt
Legal Events 11/04/2016Britain's High Court brought government plans for leaving the European Union screeching to a halt Thursday, ruling that the prime minister can't trigger the U.K.'s exit from the bloc without parliamentary approval. The government said it would go to ...
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0096f/0096fc8e9a6fca7cdd0ea81063fccc031be46cea" alt=""
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.