The major question before the Supreme Court of Minnesota was whether the statutory presumption applied at the time of the employee's diagnosis or only after legal proof of the diagnosis.

The fifth module in the Cannabis Insurance Coverage Specialist designation provides insights to protect employees and employers.

The employer claimed the man's injuries weren't compensable because he had not arrived at the employer's premises at the time of injury. The man asserted he was performing work-related duties as assigned and directed by the employer when the collision occurred.

The employer asserted the "positive work order" defense, which required proof that there was a specific policy in place, the claimant knew about the employer's policy, and that the claimant's conduct at the time of injury removed the claimant from the course of employment.

The employer claimed the man's injuries weren't compensable because he had not arrived at the employer's premises at the time of injury. The man asserted he was performing work-related duties as assigned and directed by the employer when the collision occurred.

The employer asserted the "positive work order" defense, which required proof that there was a specific policy in place, the claimant knew about the employer's policy, and that the claimant's conduct at the time of injury removed the claimant from the course of employment.

When a company uses two sets of books in order to pay lower premiums for workers compensation premiums, the discovery of such often results in charges of insurance fraud.

This question deals with a claims situation where a hotel's chef was injured at his employer's culinary awards celebration, and the claim's applicability to workers compensation coverage.

It is not uncommon to see workers compensation cases end up in court over whether the claimant's injuries both arose out of and in the course of their employment.

The Alaska Supreme Court made a crucial distinction concerning the proximate cause of workplace accidents when the justices unanimously affirmed a verdict awarding benefits to an injured employee who had admitted to being impaired while at work.