New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Legislation Update
Below are some of the more notable pending New Jersey workers’ compensation legislation:
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 27, No.
The Judge of Compensation Claims found that the offer of travel reimbursement does not satisfy the employer/carrier’s obligation to provide medical transportation.
The claimant filed a petition for benefits seeking authorization for transportation to all medical appointments. The employer/carrier authorized Monti Transportation for same.
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 27, No.
The Delaware Superior Court affirms Industrial Accident Board’s decision setting aside a workers’ compensation agreement pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 60(b) due to fraud on the part of the claimant.
Mr. Mendoza, a non-English speaker, fell at work while cleaning and buffing floors on July 16, 2018. The event was witnessed by a supervisor.
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 27, No.
Florida Legislature Passes the Roller Skating Rink Safety Act
On May 2, 2023, Florida became the 12th state to pass legislation intended to keep roller rink operators in business by promoting safety, risk management and shared responsibility of liability.
Legal Update for Amusements Sports & Recreation Litigation, May 8, 2023, has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey.
Florida’s 4th District Court of Appeal Decides Insurer’s Presuit Notice Requirement Is Procedural in Nature and Applies Retroactively
In a decision that continues to fuel the dispute between the plaintiff and defense bar, Florida’s Fourth District Court found that the presuit notice provision of section 627.70152 is procedural in nature and, as such, applies retroactively to pol
Legal Update for Insurance Services, May 8, 2023, has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey.
Dismissal of all claims on the eve of trial where EMT plaintiff’s demand was $10 million.
The plaintiff was an Emergency Medicine Technician who was severely assaulted during an ambulance transport of a minor patient to a psychiatric facility. The client-physician had discharged the minor patient with orders for sedation and restraints, if needed, during transport. The plaintiff alleged these discharge orders were insufficient and violated standard of care. Our attorneys successfully argued that under Pennsylvania’s Mcare Act our client-physician did not owe a duty to the plaintiff-EMT, only to the minor patient.