No class-action for suits over Calif. fish kill
Recent Cases
An appeals court has rejected class-action status for a lawsuit prompted by efforts to kill off an invasive fish in Northern California.
The Sacramento Bee says the 3rd District Court of Appeal ruled last week that people suing the state had too little in common to comprise a single class and must sue individually.
In 2007, the state Fish and Game Department dumped thousands of gallons of poison into Lake Davis in Plumas County to kill the voracious northern pike. The lake was closed for several months.
The city of Portola and a number of businesses and property owners sued in 2009, arguing that the action caused a decline in tourism that hurt their income, property values and tax receipts.
Related listings
-
Bank of America starts overdraft rebate outreach
Recent Cases 08/08/2011If you had a Bank of America account with a debit card between January 2001 and May of this year, you may be due some cash. The nation's largest bank has started contacting customers who may be entitled to a refund. It recently reached a class-action...
-
NYC lawyer pleads guilty to tax charge
Recent Cases 08/05/2011A lawyer has pleaded guilty to not paying taxes on nearly $11 million in income while working at a major Wall Street law firm. John O'Brien entered the plea Thursday in federal court in Manhattan. The government had accused the 48-year-old O'Brien of...
-
Court tosses Wisconsin limit on PAC donations
Recent Cases 08/03/2011A 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 ...
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.