Mo. high court hears arguments on incentive fund
Recent Cases
Missouri Supreme Court judges are weighing two potentially contradictory sections of legislation while deciding whether a new law creating an incentive fund for high-tech businesses can take effect.
Arguments Wednesday before the high court focused on the bill's contingency clause, which made the program effective only if lawmakers also passed a separate economic development bill during a 2011 special session. A trial judge struck down the entire law earlier this year, ruling the contingency clause was unconstitutional.
During an appeal to the Supreme Court, the attorney general's office argued that judges should focus a severability clause that also was contained in the bill. That section said that if part of the measure were struck down, other portions of the bill could still be allowed to take effect.
Related listings
-
California deputy pleads guilty to weapons charge
Recent Cases 08/31/2012A former Sacramento County sheriff's deputy has pleaded guilty to a federal charge stemming from the illegal sale of dozens of weapons, some of which were used by criminals. Prosecutors in Sacramento say Thomas Lu and fellow former deputy Ryan McGowa...
-
Man who killed wife, baby loses appeal in Mass.
Recent Cases 08/15/2012The highest court in Massachusetts rejected the appeal of a British man convicted of killing his wife and baby daughter in their rented home, saying in its decision released Tuesday that warrantless searches of the home were justified because those i...
-
Peter Madoff pleads guilty in NYC, blames brother
Recent Cases 07/01/2012In pleading guilty to criminal charges, Peter Madoff portrayed himself as a victim of a domineering older brother who he revered right up until an evening in December 2008 when his sibling revealed that his wildly successful investment business was a...
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.