The bill may be a victim of the large to-do list facing thecountry. The same issues that are focusing lawmakers' attention atthe national level -- notably health-care reform, housing, and theeconomy -- also are occupying state legislators' time. It isdifficult for elected officials to spend valuable session timetinkering with workers' compensation laws that are for the mostpart actually working when their constituents are homeless andjobless.

However, while major reforms may be few this year, courts andstate officials continue to expand or retract workers' compensationlaws, rules, and regulations through narrow rulings and targetedbills. A sampling of some recent activity that may portend largerissues in the future:

New Jersey
In a victory for coffeedrinkers everywhere, the New Jersey Appellate Court Division ruledthis month that an off-site employee who was injured while drivingto a deli for coffee is eligible for full benefits. In Cooper v.Barnickel Enterprises, Inc., the court ruled that "accidentsoccurring during coffee breaks for off-site employees, which areequivalent to those of on-site workers, are minor deviations fromemployment which permit full recovery of workers' compensationbenefits." This liberal interpretation of the "coming-and-going"rule is being referred to (no surprise) as the Starkbucks'Ruling.

Oregon
An Oregon law passed last summer and effective Jan. 1 requires allcounties to provide workers' compensation coverage for qualifiedsearch and rescue volunteers. HB 3021 provides both workers'compensation benefits and protection under the Oregon Tort ClaimsAct to qualified emergency service workers and search and rescuevolunteers. It also clarifies statutory provisions relating toemergency health care providers and clarifies that an emergencydoes not qualify as a single accident or occurrence for purposes ofthe Oregon Tort Claims Act.

Also in Oregon, the state Supreme Court has upheld a judge'sruling that a workers' compensation carrier must pay for gastricbypass surgery for an injured worker. The claimant needed kneereplacement surgery for a work-related injury. It was determinedthat the gastric bypass was required to ensure the success of theknee surgery for the 300-pound plus claimant. Rulings in favor ofweight-reduction surgery for obese claimants have becomeincreasingly common in recent years. One of the first and mostfamous involved Adam Childers, a 6-foot, 340-pound cook in aSchererville, Ind., pizza restaurant. After sustaining a backinjury in 2007, Childers sought surgical relief. The doctor saidthe surgery would be unsuccessful unless he lost weight, andprescribed lap-band surgery. Childers wanted his employer to payfor the lap-band operation as part of his workers' compensationclaim. The pizza chain balked. In August 2009, the Indiana Court ofAppeals, ruling in PS2 LLC, D/B/A Boston's Gourmet Pizza v.Childers, upheld a workers' compensation board finding that thepizza chain must pay for the weight-reduction surgery

New York
In New York, Assembly Bill 1867and Senate Bill 2247, companion bills introduced this month, areeither giant steps forward for workers or calamitous setbacks forfarmers. The labor legislation dictates overtime pay rights forfarmworkers, but continues existing exemptions for small farms fromworkers' compensation and unemployment insurance tax liabilities.The legislation has gone through several metamorphoses over thepast several months and neither side is completely happy, leadingmost to believe that the final compromise bill has a chance ofpassing.