The United States Supreme Court has denied review of the Sixth Circuit’s en banc decision in Jackson v. Sedwick Claims Mngmt. Servs. [731 F.3d 556 (6th Cir. 2013)]. Readers will recall that the Jackson case, which questions whether an injured employee may recover under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) when an employer, the employer’s claims administrator, and an examining physician, using the mail, allegedly collude so as to deny or terminate the employee’s workers’ compensation benefits, has been a veritable “yo-yo” between the Sixth Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Last year, a divided Sixth Circuit said that the employees’ expectation of benefits was not a sufficient property interest under RICO and added that while the RICO law was to be given liberal construction, it was not intended as “a means for federalizing personal injury tort claims arising under state law.” Where a claimant suffered a compensable back injury and medical evidence later indicated she had reached maximum medical.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is a leading commentator and expert on the law of workers’ compensation.
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance. Bracketed citations link to lexis.com.
See Jackson v. Sedwick Claims Mngmt. Servs, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 3239 (May 5, 2014) [2014 U.S. LEXIS 3239 (May 5, 2014)]
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 100.03 [100.03]
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site