<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Lawyers USA Online &#187; workers&#8217; compensation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/tag/workers-compensation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com</link>
	<description>Your Business Partner</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:39:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Worker can’t get comp for post-traumatic stress disorder&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/06/11/worker-cant-get-comp-for-post-traumatic-stress-disorder/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/06/11/worker-cant-get-comp-for-post-traumatic-stress-disorder/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Jun 2013 19:29:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[post traumatic stress disorder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PTSD]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[workers' compensation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=93193</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>An injured employee was not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits for a post-traumatic stress disorder that he was unable to show was caused by a compensable physical injury, the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled in affirming judgment.</p> <p>The plaintiff worked as a dump-truck driver. He sustained back injuries when his <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/06/11/worker-cant-get-comp-for-post-traumatic-stress-disorder/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/06/11/worker-cant-get-comp-for-post-traumatic-stress-disorder/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Medicare statute doesn’t preempt state comp law&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/22/medicare-statute-doesnt-preempt-state-comp-law/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/22/medicare-statute-doesnt-preempt-state-comp-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 20:08:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medicare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medicare Secondary Payer statute]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[workers' compensation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=92918</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The Medicare Secondary Payer Statute does not preempt a state law requiring a workers’ compensation claimant to obtain preauthorization before incurring certain medical expenses, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in affirming judgment.</p> <p>The plaintiff injured his back at work and began receiving workers’ compensation benefits from <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/22/medicare-statute-doesnt-preempt-state-comp-law/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/22/medicare-statute-doesnt-preempt-state-comp-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Workers’ comp disclaimer barred personal injury suit&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/02/workers-comp-disclaimer-barred-personal-injury-suit/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/02/workers-comp-disclaimer-barred-personal-injury-suit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 May 2013 17:09:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury and Tort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disclaimer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[liability waiver]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[premises liability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[slip and fall]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[workers' compensation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=92613</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>An employee waived her right to sue her employer’s customers for negligence when she signed a workers’ compensation disclaimer at the time she was hired, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled in affirming a dismissal.</p> <p>The plaintiff was employed as a private security guard with the defendant. At the time <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/02/workers-comp-disclaimer-barred-personal-injury-suit/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/02/workers-comp-disclaimer-barred-personal-injury-suit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>VA may intervene in workers’ comp proceeding&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/02/va-may-intervene-in-workers-comp-proceeding/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/02/va-may-intervene-in-workers-comp-proceeding/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 May 2013 17:01:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reimbursement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[VA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[veterans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[workers' compensation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=92609</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) could intervene in the workers’ compensation proceeding of a veteran in order to ensure payment for medical care provided for a work-related injury, the Missouri Supreme Court has ruled in reversing judgment.</p> <p>The claimant in the case is a veteran who received care <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/02/va-may-intervene-in-workers-comp-proceeding/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/02/va-may-intervene-in-workers-comp-proceeding/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Benchmarks: Croc-wearing nurse gets comp for idiopathic fall&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/02/benchmarks-croc-wearing-nurse-gets-comp-for-idiopathic-fall/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/02/benchmarks-croc-wearing-nurse-gets-comp-for-idiopathic-fall/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 May 2013 14:09:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Analysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Crocs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[idiopathic injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[workers' compensation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=92596</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A nurse will be receiving workers’ compensation benefits for an unexplained fall at work after the Tennessee Supreme Court turned a blind eye to the fact that she was wearing Crocs in violation of workplace rules.</p> <p>Crocs are those silly plastic shoes that became a fad about six or seven <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/02/benchmarks-croc-wearing-nurse-gets-comp-for-idiopathic-fall/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/02/benchmarks-croc-wearing-nurse-gets-comp-for-idiopathic-fall/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Suicide attempt compensable under Longshore Act&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/04/12/suicide-attempt-compensable-under-longshore-act/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/04/12/suicide-attempt-compensable-under-longshore-act/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2013 15:37:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[suicide]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[workers' compensation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=92337</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A dock worker who injured himself in a suicide attempt may be entitled to benefits under the federal Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in reversing an administrative denial of benefits.</p> <p>In 2001, the plaintiff suffered serious injuries when he fell <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/04/12/suicide-attempt-compensable-under-longshore-act/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/04/12/suicide-attempt-compensable-under-longshore-act/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Benchmarks: Comp recipient didn’t forfeit benefits by ‘working’&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/03/11/benchmarks-comp-recipient-didnt-forfeit-benefits-by-working/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/03/11/benchmarks-comp-recipient-didnt-forfeit-benefits-by-working/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:18:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Analysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[workers' compensation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=91814</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>An employer thought it had caught a supposedly disabled employee dead to rights when a private investigator’s surveillance video showed the employee working at her boyfriend’s herbal remedies store.</p> <p>But a state top court decided Friday that her workers’ compensation benefits were safe because she hadn’t “knowingly” engaged in fraud.</p> <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/03/11/benchmarks-comp-recipient-didnt-forfeit-benefits-by-working/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/03/11/benchmarks-comp-recipient-didnt-forfeit-benefits-by-working/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Comp exclusivity may not bar wrongful death suit&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/02/15/comp-exclusivity-may-not-bar-wrongful-death-suit/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/02/15/comp-exclusivity-may-not-bar-wrongful-death-suit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2013 16:48:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury and Tort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[negligent design]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[workers' compensation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wrongful death]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=91374</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>An employer could be sued for the wrongful death of an employee under the theory that it was the successor of the entity that caused the accident, the South Carolina Supreme Court has ruled in answering a certified question from a U.S. District Court.</p> <p>The defendant hired the plaintiff’s husband <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/02/15/comp-exclusivity-may-not-bar-wrongful-death-suit/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/02/15/comp-exclusivity-may-not-bar-wrongful-death-suit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Benchmarks: Heart attack at work isn’t compensable&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/28/heart-attack-at-work-isnt-compensable/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/28/heart-attack-at-work-isnt-compensable/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2013 16:04:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Analysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[heart attack]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[workers' compensation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=90928</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>An Idaho prison guard will not be receiving workers’ compensation benefits after failing to show that the plaque rupture that caused his heart attack was triggered by events that occurred <em>after</em> he arrived at work.</p> <p>“[The claimant] was required to prove the cause by producing expert testimony showing that the <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/28/heart-attack-at-work-isnt-compensable/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/28/heart-attack-at-work-isnt-compensable/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Attorney lien had priority over Medicaid claim&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/24/attorney-lien-had-priority-over-medicaid-claim/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/24/attorney-lien-had-priority-over-medicaid-claim/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2013 17:20:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Your Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorney’s lien]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disability benefits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medicaid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[workers' compensation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=90886</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>An attorney lien had statutory priority over a state’s lien for Medicaid reimbursement with respect to an award of workers’ compensation benefits, the Missouri Court of Appeals has ruled in reversing judgment.</p> <p>The lawyer represented a client who filed a claim for workers’ compensation. The lawyer obtained an award of <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/24/attorney-lien-had-priority-over-medicaid-claim/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/24/attorney-lien-had-priority-over-medicaid-claim/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
