Court tosses Wisconsin limit on PAC donations
Recent Cases
A federal appeals court ruling could lead to even more spending in Wisconsin's recall elections.
A 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled Monday that the state's $10,000 annual contribution limit on so-called "super PACs," or political action committees that do not coordinate with specific candidates or their campaigns, can't be enforced while a lawsuit from one of the groups is pending.
The lawsuit was brought by Wisconsin Right to Life's political action committee, and the group's attorney said it will immediately begin soliciting big-dollar donations to spend in the recalls targeting six Republicans and two Democrats.
"They will raise money in excess of the limits," said Right to Life attorney James Bopp, Jr.
To date, Wisconsin Right to Life's PAC reported spending only $325 on telephone calls in support of Republican Sen. Randy Hopper and against his Democratic challenger, Jessica King.
The appeals court said the donation limit can be exceeded while the underlying lawsuit is pending. Wisconsin Right to Life argues that the limits are an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.
Oral arguments were tentatively planned for September, after both the Aug. 9 elections targeting six Republican state senators and elections a week later involving two Democratic incumbents.
Related listings
-
Court denies motion to stop Loughner medication
Recent Cases 07/25/2011A federal court Friday night denied an emergency motion by defense lawyers to keep prison officials in Missouri from forcibly medicating the Tucson shooting rampage suspect with a psychotropic drug. In a one-page ruling, judges from the 9th Circuit C...
-
Paralegal accused of stealing from law firm
Recent Cases 07/20/2011Authorities say a South Florida paralegal stole hundreds of thousands of dollars from her Fort Lauderdale law firm. Miami-Dade officials on Tuesday charged 53-year-old Brenda Wilcott-Kelly with more than 80 felonies, including grand theft and forging...
-
Lawyer defends Nevada truck firm in Amtrak crash
Recent Cases 07/11/2011A lawyer for the Nevada trucking company whose tractor-trailer slammed into an Amtrak train, killing six people, defended the company’s safety record Thursday and said it was not at fault in two previous accidents cited in state safety records. John ...
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.