Supreme Court rejects blood transfusion case
National News
The Supreme Court won't hear an appeal from the estate of a Michigan woman who died following a kidney transplant after turning down a blood transfusion because of her religious beliefs.
The justices on Monday let stand a state appeals court ruling that said the estate of Gwendolyn Rozier could not sue her doctors for negligence.
Rozier received a kidney from her daughter in a 2007 surgery but doctors later found that her body was rejecting the organ. She refused a blood transfusion, in keeping with the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Rozier's estate accused the doctors of failing to timely recognize internal bleeding, among other allegations, which would have eliminated the need for a transfusion.
The Michigan appeals court said the transfusion was a necessary medical procedure under the circumstances
Related listings
-
Philippine court convicts 9 Chinese of poaching
National News 11/25/2014A Philippine court convicted nine Chinese fishermen Monday of poaching and taking hundreds of endangered giant sea turtles from a disputed shoal in the South China Sea, fining each of them nearly $103,000 but imposing no jail term. The fishermen were...
-
Appeals court rules against imprisoned American
National News 11/17/2014A federal appeals court has ruled against a government subcontractor imprisoned in Cuba who is seeking to sue the U.S. government for the destruction of his business. Alan Gross was detained in December 2009 while setting up Internet access as a subc...
-
Italian court deliberating appeal in quake trial
National News 11/11/2014An appeals court is deliberating the fate of seven experts who were found guilty of failing to adequately warn residents of the risk before an earthquake struck central Italy in 2009, killing more than 300 people. The guilty verdict and six-year jail...
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.