Vol. 7, Issue 22

Find Solutions & Strategies                  May 31, 2016 
Workers' Compensation Opt Out Laws: No Escape From ERISA Preemption?
In This Issue
- OPT OUT AND ERISA
- LARSON'S SPOTLIGHT
- NATIONAL & STATE NEWS
- eNEWSLETTER ARCHIVES
A Note From the Editor
      
Today's issue helps us understand the complexities of ERISA. Sign up here for our free eNewsletter.
    
Robin E. Kobayashi, JD
Editor-in-Chief 
robin.e.kobayashi@lexisnexis.com  
workers' compensation opt out laws: no escape from erisa preemption?
In ERISA Congress has created a "lock-box" in which it both carefully defines and limits state exclusions from the statute and aggressively sweeps up through preemption anything that remains. Thus, if an employee welfare benefit plan is not clearly and exactly excluded from ERISA, any state law "relating to" the plan is preempted. 

By Michael C. Duff, Centennial Professor of Law at the University of Wyoming College of Law 
 
As regular followers of the workers' compensation scene know, the Vasquez decision, issued recently by the Oklahoma Workers' Compensation Commission (WCC), has been appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. As readers may also recall, Ms. Vasquez was denied benefits for an alleged workplace injury under an "alternative benefit plan," authorized by the Oklahoma workers' compensation opt-out statute, titled "the Injury Benefit Act." The theory of the plan's denial of benefits was that Vasquez's injury resulted partially or completely from a preexisting condition and was thus not an "injury" within the meaning of the alternative plan...read more.  
LARSON'S SPOTLIGHT ON RECENT CASES
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., our Feature National Columnist, is the co-author of Larson's Workers' Compensation Law (LexisNexis). 
  
Utah: High Court Says Labor Commission's Fee Schedule I Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of Utah held (a) that the statute delegating authority to the Labor Commission to regulate fees for attorneys representing claimants and (b) the sliding-scale fee schedule (and cap on fees) crafted by the Commission...read more.
Wisconsin: Comp Insurer Need Not Defend Employee Accused of Sexual Assault on Co-Employee. An employer's workers' compensation insurer had no duty to defend an employee, Rydberg, who had been sued by a co-employee who claimed that Rydberg sexually groped her while both were at work on the employer's premises...read more.

Alaska: Medical Evidence Supports Board's Finding That Workplace Accident Was Not Substantial Cause of Employee's Disability. Noting the considerable deference allowed to the state's Workers' Compensation Board when it comes to reconciling any differences in medical evidence, the Supreme Court of Alaska affirmed a decision that denied...read more.

Arkansas: Commission Resolves Conflicting Medical Evidence Against Employee. An Arkansas appellate court affirmed a decision by the state's Workers' Compensation Commission that denied an employee additional medical benefits for continued pain management where the court said the Commission considered the medical evidence...read more.
Work Comp Emerging Issues
Click on image for 20% discount 
national & state news

ENEWSLETTER ARCHIVES

ArchivesTake a deep dive into our past eNewsletters for 2016 and prior...warning - some links to articles may not work...report any linking problems to Robin.E.Kobayashi@lexisnexis.com.

LexisNexis and the Knowledge Burst logo are registered trademarks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used under license. Other products or services may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective companies.

Privacy & Security Copyright © 2016 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
LexisNexis Brand Logo Bottom Grey