Supreme Court To Hear Uranium Trade Case
Recent Cases
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider whether uranium enriched in France and imported to the United States for use in nuclear power plants is subject to U.S. trade laws.
Eurodif SA, a French uranium-enrichment company, and U.S. utility companies argued that the imported uranium constitutes a "service" - and not a "good" subject to punitive tariffs - because the utilities provide the raw uranium and simply pay Eurodif to enrich it.
Concluding that uranium enrichment is a "manufacturing process" and not a service, the Commerce Department in 2002 imposed a 20 percent antidumping duty on Eurodif imports.
The Federal Circuit overturned that ruling in March 2005, a decision the high court agreed to review. The case could make it more difficult for U.S. companies to obtain protective tariffs on cheaper imports.
Related listings
-
Jurors' Complaints Bring Mistrial
Recent Cases 04/18/2008In an extraordinary case of a jury room dispute spilling into public view, a Suffolk Superior Court jury was dismissed yesterday after a male juror was accused of sexually harassing several women on the panel during lengthy deliberations in a 2004 mu...
-
Judge says Parmalat fraud suit can proceed
Recent Cases 04/16/2008A New Jersey Superior Court judge ruled Tuesday that a $7 billion lawsuit filed by Italian dairy giant Parmalat SpA against Citigroup could go forward on a claim that Citigroup aided and abetted former Parmalat executives in misappropriating company ...
-
Court Steps Into Utilities Case
Recent Cases 04/15/2008The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear an environmental case in which utility companies want to revive an industry-friendly regulation put in place by the Bush administration. The dispute with environmental groups revolves around the harm compani...
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.