Appeals court rules against imprisoned American
National News
A federal appeals court has ruled against a government subcontractor imprisoned in Cuba who is seeking to sue the U.S. government for the destruction of his business.
Alan Gross was detained in December 2009 while setting up Internet access as a subcontractor for the U.S. government's Agency for International Development. It was his fifth trip to Cuba to work with Jewish communities on building Internet access that bypassed local censorship.
Cuba considers USAID programs illegal attempts by the U.S. to undermine the Cuban government. Gross was tried and sentenced to 15 years in prison in Cuba, where he remains. Gross and his wife sued for negligence.
In a 3-0 decision Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the U.S. government is immune from any claim arising in a foreign country. It affirmed a lower court judge's dismissal of the case.
The Grosses said the government is cloaking itself in immunity after sending Gross into a situation it knew would be dangerous.
Scott Gilbet, a lawyer representing the Grosses, said he will be seeking further review in the courts and that "we are very disappointed in the decision."
The $60 million lawsuit blames the U.S. government and the contractor Gross was working for, Maryland-based Development Alternatives Inc., for failing to appropriately prepare him for his work in Cuba. The Gross family settled for an undisclosed amount with Development Alternatives.
Related listings
-
Italian court deliberating appeal in quake trial
National News 11/11/2014An appeals court is deliberating the fate of seven experts who were found guilty of failing to adequately warn residents of the risk before an earthquake struck central Italy in 2009, killing more than 300 people. The guilty verdict and six-year jail...
-
Appeals court in Va. reviewing NC abortion law
National News 10/30/2014North Carolina's solicitor general on Wednesday urged a federal appeals court to revive a state law that would require abortion providers to show and describe an ultrasound of the fetus to the pregnant woman, even if the patient refuses to look or li...
-
Court in Va. examines death row isolation policy
National News 10/28/2014Virginia's practice of automatically holding death row inmates in solitary confinement will be reviewed by a federal appeals court in a case that experts say could have repercussions beyond the state's borders. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in ...
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.