Stevens denies Blagojevich request for delay
National News
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to delay ousted Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's trial on corruption charges, set to begin next week.
Justice John Paul Stevens rejected Blagojevich's request without comment. His decision came shortly after the Obama administration told the high court that it opposed Blagojevich's request.
The former governor's trial is scheduled to begin on Thursday.
In Chicago, Blagojevich attorney Sheldon Sorosky said after hearing about the decision that the former governor's legal team was ready for the trial to get under way.
"We didn't prepare presuming that the Supreme Court would rule in our favor — we prepared for the worst," Sheldon Sorosky said. "The Supreme Court has ruled and that's that."
Blagojevich had asked the high court to delay his trial until the justices rule first in pending cases about the constitutionality of the federal honest-services fraud law. Prosecutors have charged Blagojevich with violating the fraud law and other crimes.
Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal said the evidence on the honest services charges "is the same as that underlying the bribery, extortion, and racketeering counts." That means the flow of the trial won't be affected by what the Supreme Court says about the honest services charges, Katyal said in court papers.
Related listings
-
As immigration fades, Emanuel role under scrutiny
National News 05/24/2010Prospects for an immigration overhaul are fizzling this year and some Democratic lawmakers are focusing blame on the pugnacious Democratic operative who works just down the hall from President Obama.Rahm Emanuel, White House chief of staff and longti...
-
Starbucks Sued over "Unreasonably" Hot Tea
National News 05/17/2010Starbucks Corp has been sued by a customer who allegedly suffered second-degree burns after being served tea that was too hot.According to the complaint, the plaintiff Zeynep Inanli was served tea that was "unreasonably hot, in containers which were ...
-
WilmerHale moving support staff to Ohio
National News 05/03/2010WilmerHale announced last week it was relocating its administrative support base to a new campus in Dayton, Ohio, as it seeks to streamline internal business operations across its many offices. When the business services center opens in September, it...
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.