Court won't force Calif officials to defend Prop 8
National News
A California court has refused to order Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown to appeal a ruling that overturned the state's gay marriage ban.
The 3rd District Court of Appeal on Wednesday denied a conservative legal group's request to force the officials to defend voter-approved Proposition 8.
Presiding Justice Arthur Scotland did not explain why the appeals court turned down the request filed two days earlier by the Pacific Justice Institute.
The institute now plans to take the matter to the California Supreme Court, Chief Counsel Kevin Snider said Thursday.
"We are disappointed that the appellate court showed indecisiveness in trying to prevent a constitutional crisis," Snider said. "They didn't want to deal with it."
The institute maintains the attorney general and governor have the duty to uphold all laws, not just those with which they personally agree.
Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker struck down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional last month.
The measure approved by 52 percent of California voters in November 2008 amended the state Constitution to outlaw same-sex unions five months after the state Supreme Court legalized them.
The state has until Sept. 11 to challenge Walker's ruling. Both Brown and Schwarzenegger have said they don't plan an appeal.
Related listings
-
Thousands sign on for $10 billion BP suit
National News 08/30/2010The revelation that BP's Texas City refinery emitted toxic benzene for more than a month has ignited a furor in the port community that has suffered its share of deadly industrial accidents and toxic spills.Thousands of residents who fear they may ha...
-
Ruling overturning Prop 8 shaped for higher courts?
National News 08/23/2010When U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker struck down California's Proposition 8—the 2008 ballot initiative to outlaw gay marriage—he said the motivation for the majority of voters was clear."The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious view...
-
DUI Life Sentence Stirs Debate About Alcoholism
National News 08/17/2010Nobody disputes that driving under the influence of alcohol is dangerous. In fact, it's one of the most deadly crimes. You won't get any serious arguments from anybody that people should be allowed to drive while impaired. Nobody would dispute that y...
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.