Court: IURC erred in approving Duke fee hike
National News
The Indiana Court of Appeals has determined that state utility regulators wrongly approved $61 million in ratepayer fees for the Edwardsport coal gasification plant.
Duke Energy is seeking the money to cover construction costs for the new plant. But Appeals Court Judge James Kirsch wrote in an opinion issued Monday that members of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission should have better analyzed arguments from Duke Energy and plant opponents before approving the fee increase.
Duke officials have said a three-month delay led to increased project costs. But opponents led by the Citizens Action Coalition have argued that IURC regulators have been "rubber-stamping" fees and a rate hike sought by Duke.
The case is one of many surrounding the Edwardsport plant that is locked in battle inside the Indiana courts.
Related listings
-
Chris Brown due back in DC court for plea hearing
National News 09/01/2014Singer Chris Brown is scheduled to appear in a District of Columbia court for what would be a third attempt at a plea deal to resolve an assault case that dates to October 2013. According to court filings, Brown was scheduled to appear in D.C. Superi...
-
Guilty plea in California meat recall case
National News 08/28/2014A co-owner of a Northern California slaughterhouse accused of processing cows with cancer has pleaded guilty to a criminal charge. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that 77-year-old Robert Singleton, co-owner of Petaluma-based Rancho Feeding Corp.,...
-
Brazil's Supreme Court elects new president
National News 08/19/2014Brazil's Supreme Court has elected a new president to replace the body's first black justice, who announced his early retirement in June. Nine of the court's 10 judges elected Ricardo Lewandowski as the new chief justice Wednesday to succeed Joaquim ...
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.