Senate confirms Arizona jurist to 9th Circuit
Recent Cases
An Arizona Supreme Court justice was confirmed as a U.S. appellate judge Tuesday, despite complaints from conservatives that he influenced the Roe v. Wade ruling while a law clerk four decades ago.
The Senate confirmed Andrew David Hurwitz by voice vote, elevating him to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals serving Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, California and, Arizona.
The decision to confirm Hurwitz without a roll call angered Sen. Charles Grassley, ranking GOP member on the Judiciary Committee who opposed the nomination. A Democratic leadership official, who was not authorized to be quoted by name, said a deal to avoid a roll call was worked out between Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Republican leaders. .
Grassley, speaking on the Senate floor, said, "I was shocked and disappointed" with the decision to bypass a roll call. "I was not so informed, and I'm ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. It seems to me that all the business of the Senate is based upon trust between one senator and another. It seems to me that that trust has been violated. "
Grassley did not name anyone. However the deputy Republican leader, John Kyl of Arizona, supported the nomination. Kyl bristled at the suggestion that he cut a backroom deal to confirm the judge by voice vote.
Related listings
-
Ohio man found guilty in septic tank body case
Recent Cases 06/11/2012A jury has convicted a man of aggravated murder and other charges in the death of his estranged wife, who was found strangled in a septic tank in southeast Ohio last year. Hocking County jurors in Logan deliberated for about four hours before returni...
-
Wash. lawyers challenge secret court proceedings
Recent Cases 05/26/2012A defense lawyer in Eastern Washington was reading a detective's statement in his client's drug case when he came across a curious line. In asking to search the man's house and cars, the detective revealed that he had already seen the defendant's ban...
-
Kan. gov. signs measure blocking Islamic law
Recent Cases 05/26/2012Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback has signed a law aimed at keeping the state's courts or government agencies from basing decisions on Islamic or other foreign legal codes, and a national Muslim group's spokesman said Friday that a court challenge is likely....
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.