Supreme Court will decide whether mobile voting sites are legal
National News
The state Supreme Court announced Friday that it will decide whether mobile voting sites are legal without allowing any lower appellate courts to rule first.
The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, a conservative law firm, sued in December 2022 on behalf of Racine County Republican Party Chair Ken Brown, alleging Racine city officials illegally used a voting van to collect absentee ballots that year. A circuit judge ruled in January that state law doesn’t allow mobile voting sites to operate.
Racine City Clerk Tara McMenamin and the Democratic National Committee asked the state Supreme Court in February to review the case without letting any lower appellate courts rule on it first.
Justice Janet Protasiewicz’s election win in 2023 gave liberals a 4-3 majority on the court, increasing the likelihood of a reversal. Brown filed a motion in March asking Protasiewicz to recuse herself from the case but she declined.
The justices issued an order Friday afternoon indicating they had voted 4-3 to take the case. All three conservative justices dissented. Chief Justice Annette Ziegler, a member of the conservative block, wrote that the case hasn’t been fully briefed and the liberal justices are trying to help Democrats make political gains ahead of the November elections.
Related listings
-
Court will decide if Trump has immunity in election interference case
National News 04/26/2024Supreme Court arguments have begun over whether former President Donald Trump can avoid prosecution over his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden.The justices on Thursday took up for the first time whether a former preside...
-
Mexico breaks diplomatic ties with Ecuador after embassy raid
National News 04/08/2024The Mexican president has quickly moved to break off diplomatic ties with Ecuador after police broke into the Mexican Embassy to arrest a former vice president who had sought political asylum there after being indicted on corruption charges.In an ext...
-
Retired Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy has memoir coming
National News 04/04/2024Retired Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy has a two-volume memoir coming out this fall, tracking his life from growing up in California to his 30 years on the court, when he cast key votes on landmark cases ranging from abortion to gay marriag...
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.