Court Steps Into Utilities Case
Recent Cases
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear an environmental case in which utility companies want to revive an industry-friendly regulation put in place by the Bush administration.
The dispute with environmental groups revolves around the harm companies cause when they draw water from rivers and lakes to cool electric generating equipment, then return it to the waterway. The process kills aquatic life.
The Environmental Protection Agency allowed the industry to forgo the most expensive solution, installing closed-cycle cooling systems which would cost billions of dollars at 550 generating units around the country including 104 nuclear power plants. The units account for 40 percent of the country's energy production.
The EPA rule allowed the companies to decide how to comply with the Clean Water Act by conducting cost-benefit analyses of the available options.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City ruled against the companies, saying they must adopt the best technology available.
The appeals court called into question EPA's conclusion that closed-cycle cooling costs could not be reasonably borne by the industry.
Last month, the Bush administration said in a court filing that it would support the industry position were the case to come before the Supreme Court.
With a new administration taking office next January, an EPA run by different presidential appointees might choose to change positions on the issue.
Robert Goldstein, general counsel at Riverkeeper Inc., one of the environmental groups involved in the dispute, said "it's about time this law enacted in 1972 get some teeth."
Related listings
-
Class Action Cites Zetia & Vytorin
Recent Cases 04/11/2008In a shareholder's class action that neatly summarizes complaints about Schering-Plough Corp.'s sales of its cholesterol drugs Zetia and Vytorin, the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System claims: "Sixteen months after completion of a study showing that ...
-
Circuit Applies New Test for Declaratory Judgment
Recent Cases 04/01/2008The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed a district court’s dismissal of a declaratory judgment action, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in MedImmune Inc. v. Genentech Inc., 127 S.Ct. 764 (2007). See Micron Technology, Inc. v. MO...
-
Supreme Court On Hall Street Assoc. v. Mattel, Inc.
Recent Cases 03/31/2008The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U. S. C. §§9–11, provides expedited judicial review to confirm, vacate, or modify arbitration awards. Under §9, a court “must” confirm an award “unless” it is vacated, modified, or corrected “as prescribed” in §§1...
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.