Graham appeals order to testify in Georgia election probe
National News
U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham has formally appealed a judge’s order requiring him to testify before a special grand jury investigating whether former President Donald Trump and others illegally sought to overturn his 2020 election defeat in Georgia.
The South Carolina Republican’s appeal had been expected following a judge’s Monday ruling that he comply with prosecutors’ efforts to compel him to testify Aug. 23 about his phone calls to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and his staff in the weeks following the election.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will consider Graham’s request, filed late Wednesday. Graham’s legal team also asked a federal judge to put his special grand jury appearance on hold during the appeal process.
Graham’s appeal was made the same day that another Trump associate, former campaign attorney Rudy Giuliani, spent roughly six hours before the special grand jury. The former New York mayor spread false claims of election fraud in Fulton County as he led efforts to challenge the election results in Georgia.
Met by an Associated Press reporter at the airport as he returned to New York on Wednesday, Giuliani said that he had “satisfied his obligation under the subpoena” from prosecutors but gave no further details of his testimony.
Related listings
-
Washington prepares for more patients seeking abortion
National News 06/18/2022While the nation waits for the Supreme Court’s opinion on a blockbuster abortion case that could overturn Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood of Washington is getting ready for an increase in out-of-state patients seeking an abortion.“We are ...
-
Man denies kidnapping charge in alleged murder-for-hire plot
National News 06/03/2022A Colorado man pleaded not guilty Thursday in federal court in Vermont to kidnapping a man who was later found shot to death in a snowbank in 2018 in what prosecutors allege is a murder-for-hire case stemming from a financial dispute. Federal prosecu...
-
Accountant avoids prison time in college admissions scandal
National News 05/14/2022An accountant who worked for the consultant at the center of the college admissions bribery case has avoided prison for his role in the sweeping scheme.U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani on Friday sentenced Steven Masera, 72, to time already se...
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.