Judicial Appointment Challenge In TN Fails
National News
According to Courthouse News, the 6th Circuit dismissed an appeal challenging the constitutionality of the way Tennessee appoints its Supreme Court justices.
The method drew criticism from Drew Johnson, president of the conservative Tennessee Center for Policy Research, and former Democratic gubernatorial nominee John Jay Hooker.
Johnson and Hooker claimed the appointment process deprived them of their right to vote on the Supreme Court candidates in a popular election.
Under the state's plan, the governor selects a justice from a panel of three candidates presented by a judicial selection committee. The governor's pick is then put before voters in the next election. Every eight years, voters decide whether to keep sitting justices for another term.
The magistrate judge dismissed the challenge for lack of jurisdiction, and the Cincinnati-based federal appeals court affirmed.
Related listings
-
Tasered Woman Wins Trial In Suit Against Cops
National News 07/27/2009According to Courthouse News, Minnesota police illegally Tasered a woman for refusing to hang up her 911 call after officers handcuffed her husband during a traffic stop, the 8th Circuit ruled. Sandra Brown and her husband, Richard, were driving home...
-
Prop 8 To be Decided on Soon
National News 06/17/2009Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says a federal lawsuit challenging California's gay marriage ban poses a valid legal question that should be decided by the courts. Schwarzenegger's position came in a court filing Tuesday in response to the lawsuit filed o...
-
Some possible nominees had easy Senate path before
National News 05/24/2009Some of the people President Barack Obama is considering for the Supreme Court got significant support from Republicans when they were last before the Senate seeking jobs in the judiciary or executive branches of government. But a yes vote then doesn...
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.