Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Workers’ Compensation And The Right To Interstate Travel – Schatz V Interfaith Care Centre, Mel Cousins
Workers’ Compensation And The Right To Interstate Travel – Schatz V Interfaith Care Centre, Mel Cousins
Mel Cousins
In Schatz, the Minnesota supreme court considered the interesting question of the right to interstate travel as it affects workers’ compensation. While we know that durational residence requirements for welfare benefits and medical care are likely to be found to be unconstitutional, the US courts have to date not greatly explored where other conditions of social security, workers compensation or welfare schemes may impinge on the right to interstate travel. In order to set the groundwork, Part 1 of this note sets out the Supreme Court’s decisions concerning benefits and the right to travel, focusing on the aspects of most …
Access To Quasi-Judicial Decisions – Jama V Minister For Social Protection, Mel Cousins
Access To Quasi-Judicial Decisions – Jama V Minister For Social Protection, Mel Cousins
Mel Cousins
This case involves the important issue of access to the decisions of social welfare appeals officers. The Irish High Court concluded that there was no duty on the Department to maintain a database or open library of decisions to which the public may have access and, therefore, no question of a right of access thereto arose. However, it is submitted that the legal analysis of the general issue is doubtful.
A Step Too Far - Posthumously Conceived Children And Social Security Entitlements In Vernoff V Astrue, Mel Cousins
A Step Too Far - Posthumously Conceived Children And Social Security Entitlements In Vernoff V Astrue, Mel Cousins
Mel Cousins
This case note examines a recent decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concerning the entitlements of posthumously conceived children under social security. In contrast to its earlier (expansionary) decision in Gillett-Netting, here the Court set out the limits to how far it is willing to push the interpretation of the (convoluted) legislation and refused to find a right to benefit where there was no evidence that the father had consented to (or even considered) having a child post-mortem.