Comments on: Workers Compensation and Statutory Subrogation http://www.4laborlaw.com/workers-compensation-statutory-subrogation/ Employment Law by Charles J. Cochran, Jr., Esq. Wed, 21 Sep 2011 01:13:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Charles J. Cochran, Jr. http://www.4laborlaw.com/workers-compensation-statutory-subrogation/comment-page-1/#comment-4046 Charles J. Cochran, Jr. Wed, 21 Sep 2011 01:13:26 +0000 http://www.cjcochran.net/?p=106#comment-4046 This article addresses Statutory Subrogation imposed not by any implication, or by contract but as its name indicates by Statute. I think that anyone who knows a little bit of the history of the Ohio Worker's Compensation statute involving subrogation would agree that implication has little to do with subrogating worker's compensation benefits. The Statutory Subrogation imposed in the realm of Ohio Worker's Compensation paints with a much broader brush than what subrogation might mean under Contract or even under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) interpretation of subrogation. I believe that the WoDoHr writer has taken their conceptualization of subrogation from the UCC and seeks to bring it in to define the parameters in this situation. I could be wrong but the words "surety" "creditor" and "security interest" sound a lot like UCC terminology. Please understand, I am not attacking the commenter they have raised a very interesting point (which is the reason that I approved the comment for posting) I just cannot see it as applicable to the point of my article. I do not see the Bureau of Worker's Compensation or even a Self-Insured Employer being a Surety, or a security interest as being created and who would be the Creditor spoken of in the comment. I would invite comment by someone more conversant in the UCC to help clear this up for us all. This article addresses Statutory Subrogation imposed not by any implication, or by contract but as its name indicates by Statute. I think that anyone who knows a little bit of the history of the Ohio Worker’s Compensation statute involving subrogation would agree that implication has little to do with subrogating worker’s compensation benefits. The Statutory Subrogation imposed in the realm of Ohio Worker’s Compensation paints with a much broader brush than what subrogation might mean under Contract or even under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) interpretation of subrogation. I believe that the WoDoHr writer has taken their conceptualization of subrogation from the UCC and seeks to bring it in to define the parameters in this situation. I could be wrong but the words “surety” “creditor” and “security interest” sound a lot like UCC terminology. Please understand, I am not attacking the commenter they have raised a very interesting point (which is the reason that I approved the comment for posting) I just cannot see it as applicable to the point of my article. I do not see the Bureau of Worker’s Compensation or even a Self-Insured Employer being a Surety, or a security interest as being created and who would be the Creditor spoken of in the comment. I would invite comment by someone more conversant in the UCC to help clear this up for us all.

»crosslinked«

]]> By: workers comp http://www.4laborlaw.com/workers-compensation-statutory-subrogation/comment-page-1/#comment-4041 workers comp Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:52:20 +0000 http://www.cjcochran.net/?p=106#comment-4041 In relation to a surety's subrogation rights, the surety will also have the benefit of any security interest in favour of the creditor for the original debt. Conceptually this is an important point, as the subrogee will take the subrogor's security rights by operation of law, even if the subrogee had been unaware of them. Accordingly, in this area of the law at least, it is conceptually improbable that the right of subrogation is based upon any implied term. In relation to a surety’s subrogation rights, the surety will also have the benefit of any security interest in favour of the creditor for the original debt. Conceptually this is an important point, as the subrogee will take the subrogor’s security rights by operation of law, even if the subrogee had been unaware of them. Accordingly, in this area of the law at least, it is conceptually improbable that the right of subrogation is based upon any implied term.

]]>