In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al v. Parker, A06A2277 (2007), the Court of Appeals ruled that it was error for the superior court to deny the Employer and Insurer's motion to have a judgment vacated and reentered so they could seek appeal in the Court of Appeals. In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al v. Parker, A06A2277 (2007), the Court of Appeals ruled that it was error for the superior court to deny the Employer and Insurer’s motion to have a judgment vacated and reentered so they could seek appeal in the Court of Appeals. Here, the Claimant was awarded income benefits by ... Continue Reading
Laser Printers In The Workplace: The Next Waive Of Claims?
Recent media sources report that some home and office laser printers pose serious health risks and may spew out as much particulate matter as a cigarette smoker inhales. Recent media sources report that some home and office laser printers pose serious health risks and may spew out as much particulate matter as a cigarette smoker inhales. With this technology ubiquitous, and if the preliminary research holds true, then it is only a matter of time before workers will be filing claims under the Workers’ Compensation Act, and this article will analyze the potential preliminary issues. Researchers Suggest ... Continue Reading
Five Random Thoughts About Subrogation Recovery
I have had the opportunity to assist insurance carriers with subrogation recovery for many more years that I care to think about. What follows are five "random thoughts" that I would like to share with you based upon my experiences as subrogation counsel.I have had the opportunity to assist insurance carriers with subrogation recovery for many more years that I care to think about. What follows are five "random thoughts" that I would like to share with you based upon my experiences as subrogation counsel. Frankly, most of these experiences were bad ones. My successes as a subrogation counsel tend to blur and fade away, but those times when I have ... Continue Reading
Avoiding Procedural Pitfalls In Statutory Change In Condition Cases
O.C.G.A. §34-9-104(a)(2), first enacted in 1992 as part of a substantial revision of the Workers' Compensation Act, has proven invaluable to employers and insurers in reducing their overall economic exposure in cases where a claimant has been released to return to light-duty work by the authorized treating physician but, for any number of reasons, has failed to do so. O.C.G.A. §34-9-104(a)(2), first enacted in 1992 as part of a substantial revision of the Workers’ Compensation Act, has proven invaluable to employers and insurers in reducing their overall economic exposure in cases where a claimant has been released to return to light-duty ... Continue Reading