Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Litigation
Workers' Comp Judge Can Determine Paternity
A workers' compensation judge (WCJ) has limited jurisdiction to determine paternity under a preponderance of the evidence standard where such a determination is necessary to distribute worker's compensation benefits. Rossa v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board of the City of Philadelphia, No. 30 EAP 2002, Pennsylvania Supreme Court, December 30, 2003.
On Dec. 13, 1990 Patricia Rossa gave birth out of wedlock to Ashley Rossa. On Feb. 6, 1991, Daniel Boyle, the putative father, died as a result of suffering a gunshot wound to his head sustained in the course and scope of his employment by the Philadelphia Police Department. Daniel Boyle was never judicially determined to be Ashley's father but was listed on Ashley's birth certificate as Ashley's father. The birth certificate was filed before his death. On March 20, 1992, Patricia, on Ashley's behalf, filed a claim with the Worker's Compensation Board seeking fatal claim benefits. The City of Philadelphia denied that Ashley was Daniel Boyle's child and denied the application for benefits. On Oct. 25, 1995, the Worker's Compensation Judge (WCJ) assigned to the case postponed the matter indefinitely until the parties filed a paternity claim in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. On Aug. 5, 1999, no paternity determination had been made by the Court of Common pleas, but Ashley's attorney moved to have the case removed from inactive status. Despite the city's objections, a hearing was held before the WCJ on Oct. 22, 1999. On April 20, 2000, the WCJ determined that based upon the preponderance of the credible evidence, Daniel Boyle was Ashley's fathe,r and granted Ashley's fatal claim petition. The city appealed to the worker's compensation appeal board, which reversed, holding that the WCJ did not have jurisdiction over paternity issues. Ashley appealed, and
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.