Publications
TOP 10 DEVELOPMENTS IN FLORIDA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IN 2023
1. Death benefits under Chapter 112 (Firefighter’s cancer diagnosis).
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 27, No.
TOP 10 DEVELOPMENTS IN NEW JERSEY WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IN 2023
1. The Appellate Division addresses the abuse of workers’ compensation judges’ discretion in awarding fees, costs and penalties.Garzon v. Morris Cnty. Golf Club, No. A-1100-21 (App. Div. Dec. 23, 2022)
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 27, No.
TOP 10 DEVELOPMENTS IN PENNSYLVANIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IN 2023
1. An application for Fee Review is not premature on the basis that treatment is not related to the work injury where a Utilization Review Request has not been filed.
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 27, No.
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp - News and Results*
NEWS
Angela DeMary (Mount Laurel, NJ) presented on the topic “Assessing the Injury and Case” for the National Business Institute’s webinar “New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Fundamentals” on November 29, 2023.
RESULTS*
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 27, No.
What’s Hot In Workers’ Comp - News and Results*
NEWS
RESULTS*
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 27, No.
Risk of exposure to COVID-19 at employer’s poultry processing plant was not distinct from that attending employment in general.
Mr. Fowler alleged that he suffered a compensable COVID-19 exposure while working as a “boxer” at a poultry processing plant.
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 27, No.
Section 112.1816(2) does not bar entitlement to death benefits under Florida’s workers’ compensation statute Section 440.16.
The claimant’s husband, a firefighter, died of brain cancer.
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 27, No.
Allowing your manager to “pop” your back at the end of a long shift is not an injury that arose out of employment.
The claimant had worked a 17-hour shift with little to no breaks. When his manager arrived, he complained of back pain, and then he allowed the manager to “pop” his back to relieve his pain. He then went home.
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 27, No.
Appellate Division affirms denial of insurer’s motion to dismiss for lack of coverage and affirms finding that petitioner was in course and scope of employment.
The petitioner was the owner and employee of the respondent, a structural steel company. It was noted that about 60% of the petitioner’s work involved traveling for projects and preparing estimates.
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 27, No.
Appellate Division affirms summary judgment against employer due to the exclusive remedy provision of the Act and affirms summary judgment, in part, to an insurance carrier in excluding coverage for intentional wrong claims.
In the first of these two cases (No. A-1702-21), the Appellate Division affirmed an order granting summary judgment to Bravo Pack (Bravo), dismissing all claims, cross-claims, and third party claims against Bravo.
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 27, No.