Inspired by this thread, discussing a “spammer” who revived a zombie thread to post an academic research paper that was apparently quite on point, but was then banned for “spamming” (ban has since been reversed).
It occurred to me that [del]millions[/del] [del]thousands[/del] [del]hundreds[/del] [del]dozens[/del] several of the Teeming Millions might want to read an academic paper by a fellow doper, because… well, some of you are masochists. It’s a law review article so you can read it as a PDF without having to pay for it.
However, in the spirit of lightly poking fun at Colibri (see linked thread), I am not going to post it unless it won’t count as spam - which appears to be defined as links to things people haven’t specifically asked for that might enrich oneself.
It also identifies my real name and employer, so I’m only going to PM the link to people rather than posting in-thread, in case some of you secretly long to come to my office and murder me (or at any rate long to do that and are sufficiently motivated to actually do it).
I feel obligated to point out that it’s 39 pages, focused entirely on very obscure field of law in a specific state, and incredibly boring. But you can read it if you like.
As a non-lawyer type who actually reads court decisions and law review articles for fun I’d read it. Or at least enough of it to have some idea which obscure corner of the law we’re talking about.
I enjoy reading a handful of law blogs (Popehat, SCOTUSblog, Lawfare, Mimesis Law, Lowering the Bar, etc.) and would be interested in reading your article, RNATB.
Hey first initial N with a VW, some exotic bird, and who apparently just got married … any of us who were sufficiently enough motivated to do that could pretty easily find you any way.
I came here planning to post “What? You couldn’t make this a poll?” as a sort of joke but now that I think about it it makes a kind of interesting question ----- especially in light of the ATMB thread. I wonder how many of us would like to read such articles?
Fair enough. It’s about workers’ compensation law and employer immunity. The basic premise of the WC system is that injured workers get medical and wage loss benefits on a no-fault basis. The downside (from the workers’ point of view) is that they can’t sue employers for negligence and thereby get money damages for pain and suffering. There is a line of cases in Florida that says that employers who deny workers’ compensation claims can’t subsequently assert that they are immune from suit for the same injuries if the employee tries to sue them in tort. The general premise of my article is that the courts have applied that principle too extensively and too early, while ignoring crucial aspects of the underlying legal doctrine (estoppel).
That is true. Though I’ve been married for a hair under seven years now!
Yes. But anyone could find the original article fairly easily just by googling a random selection of text. It’s available through a bunch of online sources that don’t require a subscription like HeinOnline, Scholarly Commons, and BePress, and it’s been cited a few times.
I’d probably intend to read it with the best of intentions, but depending on the subject matter, likely stop partway through or skim it. Pretty uncommon for a law review article to hold my attention these days.
Interesting article! You make a lucid argument that strikes me as pretty persuasive.
One question: you suggest that requiring the worker to exhaust the workers’ comp process despite the employer’s denial of WC liability has no significant negative consequences for WC policy or for the workers’ own interests. But while the employer may eventually be on the hook, doesn’t the employee have to pay the costs of medical care until the employer is found responsible (either by the WC process or in court)?
If so, that seems like a potential basis for equity, or at least a policy argument for stretching equitable estoppel doctrine. But I could easily be missing something.
That is true. Though I’ve been married for a hair under seven years now!