Chile's top court rules against coal-fired complex
National News
Chile's Supreme Court sided with local fishermen who contend a coal-fired power complex harms ocean life and pollutes their community, but the judges stopped short of ordering a suspension and left it to environmental authorities to decide if operations can continue.
The ruling on the Bocamina complex released Friday was another in a series of blows to big power projects in energy-strapped Chile, where concerns over environmental issues have been rising.
In December, an appeals court halted the 350-megawatt Bocamina II part of the complex owned by Endesa Chile in the southern Bio Bio region, citing harm to fishermen's livelihood.
The 128-megawatt Bocamina I plant was allowed to keep running. But the Supreme Court said the whole complex should shut down unless officials determine the water-cooling system doesn't threaten or hurt marine life.
The company can only operate the Bocamina I and II thermoelectric plants if they don't put harm marine life or put it at risk, the high court said in a ruling made Thursday.
The court ordered Chile's environmental authorities to take all measures required, including "a halt of operations" if needed, until the problem is fixed.
Environmental groups and fishermen say the complex's use of huge amounts of seawater to cool its equipment damages the area.
Related listings
-
Court: Lawmakers must expedite education funding
National News 01/10/2014The Washington Supreme Court on Thursday ordered lawmakers to submit a complete plan by the end of April to detail how the state will fully pay for basic education. The 8-1 ruling said that while the state made progress in last year's budget to incre...
-
Pa. monsignor due in court after leaving prison
National News 01/06/2014A Roman Catholic church official is due in court Monday for the first time since his conviction in the priest sex-abuse scandal was reversed. Monsignor William Lynn is not quite a free man. He must remain under electronic monitoring while prosecutors...
-
Serial rapist Coe appeals confinement in US court
National News 01/02/2014Kevin Coe, who was arrested in 1981 after dozens of women were raped in Spokane, is appealing his confinement as a sexually violent predator to federal court. Coe was suspected in the rapes, attributed to the "South Hill Rapist," but only one convict...
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.