Ban on electronic skill games in Virginia reinstated by state Supreme Court
National News
A ban on electronic skill games in Virgnia went back into effect Friday after the state Supreme Court vacated an injunction that allowed thousands of the betting machines to remain in gas stations, bars and conveniece stores.
The injunction was issued by a lower court in an ongoing lawsuit that argues the ban is a violation of free speech. But a panel of three Supreme Court justices found that the suit is unlikely to succeed.
“Although at times it is difficult to determine where a particular activity falls on the speech/conduct continuum, no such difficulty is present when the activity being regulated is gambling. We long have viewed gambling as conduct that may be heavily regulated and even banned by the Commonwealth as an exercise of its police powers,” the panel wrote in its order.
The games look and play like slot machines, though manufacturers say there is an element of skill involved.
The General Assembly passed legislation outlawing skill games in 2020, but former Gov. Ralph Northam delayed it for a year to help the state raise money for COVID-19 relief efforts.
The ban then took effect in 2021, but the lawsuit resulted in an injunction that allowed games already registered with the state’s Alcoholic Beverage Control Authoirty to continue until the issue is resolved.
The lawsuit is now set to go to trial in December.
Related listings
-
Judge blocks 2 provisions in North Carolina’s new abortion law
National News 10/04/2023by the legislature this year, including a near-ban after 12 weeks of pregnancy, aren’t being specifically challenged and remain intact.U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles issued an order halting enforcement of a provision to require surgical a...
-
Biden backs new offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico
National News 10/01/2023President Joe Biden’s administration on Friday proposed up to three oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico, but none in Alaska, as it tries to navigate between energy companies seeking greater oil and gas production and environmental act...
-
Lawyers claim cable TV and phone companies also responsible in Maui fires
National News 09/06/2023After a visit to a warehouse where Hawaiian Electric Company is housing power poles and electrical equipment that may be key to the investigation of last month’s devastating fires on Maui, lawyers for Lahaina residents and business owners told ...
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.