High court appears to favor Ala. death row inmate
Recent Cases
The Supreme Court appeared likely Tuesday to order a new court hearing for an Alabama death row inmate who lost the chance to appeal his death sentence because of a mailroom mix-up at a venerable New York law firm.
Both conservative and liberal justices indicated they would throw out a federal appeals court ruling that relied on the missed deadline to refuse to consider Cory Maples' claims that he received inadequate legal representation, dating back to his trial on charges he gunned down two friends in 1995.
Justice Samuel Alito, a former federal prosecutor, said he did not understand why Alabama fought so hard to deny Maples the right to appeal when the deadline passed "though no fault of his own."
Justice Antonin Scalia was the only member of the court who appeared to agree with the state's argument that Maples' protests are overblown because he was never left without a lawyer. The state also says the role of Maples' lawyers in missing the deadline is unfortunate but nothing the court should correct under its earlier rulings.
Gregory Garre, a former solicitor general who is representing Maples in the Supreme Court, said the earlier legal work for Maples was so bad that it violated the Constitution.
Whatever the shortcomings of Maples' trial lawyers, he appeared to "win the lottery" when two lawyers at Sullivan and Cromwell agreed to represent him for free in his appeals, Garre said. The New York-based firm has 800 lawyers and offices in a dozen cities.
Related listings
-
Court refuses to hear Maryland gun case
Recent Cases 10/03/2011The Supreme Court won't hear a Maryland man's argument that the Second Amendment allows him to carry a gun outside of his home for self-defense. The high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Charles F. Williams Jr., who was arrested in 2007...
-
Idaho inmates settle lawsuit over prison violence
Recent Cases 09/21/2011A potential class-action lawsuit against the nation's largest private prison company over allegations of violence at the Idaho Correctional Center has been settled in federal court. The agreement between the inmates and Nashville, Tenn.-based Correct...
-
Kona coffee dispute prompts class-action lawsuit
Recent Cases 09/17/2011A spat involving Safeway and Hawaii coffee growers is still brewing, even after the supermarket giant agreed to change labeling on its Kona blend coffee. A $5 million class-action lawsuit was filed in federal court in Northern California claiming Saf...
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.