Ind. taxpayers lose high court fight over refunds
National News
The Supreme Court has turned down homeowners in Indianapolis who sought tax refunds when the city changed its plan for paying for a new sewer line.
In a 6-3 ruling Monday, the court upheld the city's decision to refuse to refund taxes that some homeowners paid up front while it forgave the remaining taxes for people who paid on an installment plan.
Those who paid in full complained that the disparate treatment violated the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause.
But Justice Stephen Breyer said in his majority opinion that Indianapolis acted properly in changing the payment system because it wanted to reduce the administrative headaches of debt collection.
In dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts said the court was wrong to endorse such a gross disparity in tax treatment.
Related listings
-
Court won't hear appeals from Bulger victim family
National News 05/14/2012The Supreme Court won't hear an appeal over whether the family of a man allegedly killed by former Boston mob boss and FBI informant James "Whitey" Bulger should get millions of dollars from the government. The high court on Monday refused to hear an...
-
Court won't consider giving man new trial
National News 05/12/2012The Supreme Court won't consider giving a man convicted in the death of a Texas toddler a new trial because the medical examiner changed her opinion on the cause of death. The high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Neil Hampton Robbins, ...
-
Lawyer enters not guilty plea for shooting suspect
National News 05/01/2012A California man accused of committing the nation's deadliest school shooting rampage since the 2007 attack at Virginia Tech pleaded not guilty Monday to murder charges. One L. Goh, 43, entered his plea through his lawyer, Deputy Public Defender Davi...
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.