The court further declared: "The court of appeals correctly held that Jordan has no vested right to full payment for brand-name medication. Without such a right, there can be no credible claim of impermissible retroactivity."

A Louisiana Supreme Court decision has sent a case involving several entities back to the lower courts. According to court documents released recently, the facts of the case are this: On Jan. 12, 2007, Broussard Physical Therapy filed a disputed claim for compensation against an employer, Family Dollar Stores, Inc., and its workers' compensation insurer, Ace American Insurance. Broussard had provided health care to an injured employee of Family Dollar. But when underpayment and/or late payment of medical bills for the employee became an issue, Broussard said that the defendants -- not Broussard -- were liable under the Louisiana workers' compensation act. Broussard also sought penalties and attorneys' fees for "arbitrary and capricious handling" of its claims.

Family Dollar and Ace then filed a third-party demand against the PPO involved, FOCUS Healthcare Management, Inc. They sought defense and indemnification from a workers' compensation judge based on the PPO contracts with FOCUS, alleging that the underpayments claimed by Broussard were discounts associated with the PPO contracts, making FOCUS responsible, not them.

FOCUS filed an exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the workers' compensation judge lacked jurisdiction to decide the claim. The workers' compensation judge denied the exception of subject matter jurisdiction. FOCUS then went to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal to request a stay, which was granted.

The case slowly worked it way up to the Louisiana Supreme Court, which ruled and bounced it back down.

The court determined that the dispute between Family Dollar/Ace and FOCUS was a contract dispute involving indemnity under PPO agreements. The court said that the general rule is that district courts are vested with original jurisdiction of all civil matters. Although the original, exclusive jurisdiction granted to workers' compensation judges is often an exception to this general rule, it is limited to explicit terms. State law does not expressly grant workers' compensation judges jurisdiction over contract disputes of this type, the justices said.

Stating that the workers' compensation judge involved lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the third-party demand, the court reversed the court of appeal's ruling, dismissed the third-party demand, and remanded the original case back to the workers' compensation judge.

In Florida, the Supreme Court's October decision in Murray v. Mariner Health and Ace USA was widely viewed as a setback for the workers' compensation reforms enacted in 2003 by the state legislature.

Emma Murray had filed a petition for benefits for injuries she said occurred on the job in 2003. Her employer challenged the claim, and lost; Murray was awarded $3,224. Because a 2003 workers' compensation reform statute limited claimant attorneys' fees to a percentage of the benefits obtained, her lawyer received less than $700 for his work. It was the case claimant attorneys had been waiting for since the 2003 changes.

Because the 2003 legislation did not delete an existing reference to "recovery of a reasonable attorney's fee from the carrier or employer" contained in another subsection of the workers' compensation act, the court ruled that, "based upon the plain language of the statute, when a claimant is entitled to recover attorneys' fees from a carrier or employer ... the claimant is entitled to recover 'a reasonable attorney's fee,'" and that the statutory formula that limits attorneys' fees to a percentage of benefits obtained should not be applied if it results in an inadequate fee.

The court ultimately determined that Murray's attorney should be awarded some $16,000, using a 40-year-old case to define "reasonable," including standards such as time and labor required, the skill and experience of the lawyer, and the certainty of a fee.

The more far-reaching result is the reinstatement of hourly claimant attorney fees in all workers' compensation cases, at least for now. Business and insurance industry coalitions are busily crafting legislative remedies to put before lawmakers.