DC court sides with transit agency in dispute with church
Recent Cases
A federal appeals court in Washington is siding with transportation officials in a dispute about the transit agency's decision to reject an ad from the Roman Catholic Church.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled Tuesday.
The Archdiocese of Washington sued in 2017 after Metro rejected an ad for its Christmas fundraising effort, which showed a biblical scene. The archdiocese argued Metro's decision violated the First Amendment. Metro pointed to its blanket policy of refusing to accept issue-oriented ads including political, religious and advocacy ads.
A lower federal court judge had also sided with Metro. The Trump administration supported the archdiocese.
President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was on the three-judge panel deciding the case but recused himself, so Tuesday's decision was 2-0.
Related listings
-
Florida school shooting suspect's statement issue in court
Recent Cases 07/14/2018How much of Florida school shooting suspect Nikolas Cruz's statement to investigators should be made public is an issue going before a judge.A hearing is set Monday on whether any or all of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting suspect's ...
-
Weinstein pleads not guilty, released on bail
Recent Cases 07/07/2018Harvey Weinstein, who was previously indicted on charges involving two women, was released on bail on Monday while fighting sex crime accusations that now include a third woman."We fight these battles one day at a time, and today we won this round," ...
-
1-year-old goes to court to get reunited with family
Recent Cases 07/05/2018The 1-year-old boy in a green button-up shirt drank milk from a bottle, played with a small purple ball that lit up when it hit the ground and occasionally asked for "agua."Then it was the child's turn for his court appearance before a Phoenix immigr...
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.