ID court rules man can face felony stalking charge
Recent Cases
The Idaho Court of Appeals has ruled that allegedly violating a Washington-issued no-contact order is sufficient to elevate charges against an Idaho man to felony first-degree stalking.
The judges on Friday reversed a 2nd District Court decision that had reduced charges against Paul Carey Hartzell to second-degree stalking, a misdemeanor.
According to court documents, a counselor who lived in Washington but worked in Idaho sought a no-contact order preventing Hartzell from contacting her for a year.
That's after he allegedly made unwanted advances, including at her home.
Initially charged with first-degree stalking, a judge reduced the charges against Hartzell.
That didn't sit well with prosecutors.
The Appeals Court agreed, ruling unanimously the district court judge erred by concluding the Washington state order couldn't elevate the Idaho charge to first-degree stalking.
Related listings
-
Conn. court declines to address email warrants
Recent Cases 06/07/2013The Connecticut Supreme Court has declined to address whether state judges can issue search warrants for email accounts maintained by out-of-state companies like Google. The court took up the issue in the case of former Monroe youth minister David Es...
-
Court: US can keep bin Laden photos under wraps
Recent Cases 05/23/2013A federal appeals court is backing the U.S. government’s decision not to release photos and video taken of Osama bin Laden during and after a raid in which the terrorist leader was killed by U.S. commandos. The three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit C...
-
Appeals court allows capital retrial of Wolfe
Recent Cases 05/22/2013A federal appeals court will allow a capital murder case to proceed against an accused drug kingpin from northern Virginia. In a 2-1 ruling, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond overturned a federal judge in Norfolk who had ordered a hal...
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.