Appeals court rules against imprisoned American
National News
A federal appeals court has ruled against a government subcontractor imprisoned in Cuba who is seeking to sue the U.S. government for the destruction of his business.
Alan Gross was detained in December 2009 while setting up Internet access as a subcontractor for the U.S. government's Agency for International Development. It was his fifth trip to Cuba to work with Jewish communities on building Internet access that bypassed local censorship.
Cuba considers USAID programs illegal attempts by the U.S. to undermine the Cuban government. Gross was tried and sentenced to 15 years in prison in Cuba, where he remains. Gross and his wife sued for negligence.
In a 3-0 decision Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the U.S. government is immune from any claim arising in a foreign country. It affirmed a lower court judge's dismissal of the case.
The Grosses said the government is cloaking itself in immunity after sending Gross into a situation it knew would be dangerous.
Scott Gilbet, a lawyer representing the Grosses, said he will be seeking further review in the courts and that "we are very disappointed in the decision."
The $60 million lawsuit blames the U.S. government and the contractor Gross was working for, Maryland-based Development Alternatives Inc., for failing to appropriately prepare him for his work in Cuba. The Gross family settled for an undisclosed amount with Development Alternatives.
Related listings
-
Italian court deliberating appeal in quake trial
National News 11/11/2014An appeals court is deliberating the fate of seven experts who were found guilty of failing to adequately warn residents of the risk before an earthquake struck central Italy in 2009, killing more than 300 people. The guilty verdict and six-year jail...
-
Appeals court in Va. reviewing NC abortion law
National News 10/30/2014North Carolina's solicitor general on Wednesday urged a federal appeals court to revive a state law that would require abortion providers to show and describe an ultrasound of the fetus to the pregnant woman, even if the patient refuses to look or li...
-
Court in Va. examines death row isolation policy
National News 10/28/2014Virginia's practice of automatically holding death row inmates in solitary confinement will be reviewed by a federal appeals court in a case that experts say could have repercussions beyond the state's borders. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in ...
What Is Meant by ‘No-Fault’ Workers’ Compensation in Illinois?
If you were injured in a work-related accident and have been researching workers’ compensation, you may have seen it described as a “no-fault” system. One of the most important things to understand about the workers’ compensation system in Illinois is that it is based on a “no-fault” system. What does this mean, exactly?
Most employers in Illinois are required by law to have workers’ compensation insurance. And the workers' compensation in Illinois is a “no-fault” system, which means that any worker who has been hurt on the job is entitled to workers' compensation benefits. If you have been hurt on the job, you are entitled to workers’ compensation benefits no matter whose fault the accident was.
A no-fault insurance system, such as workers’ comp, works by paying claims regardless of who is to blame for an accident. This provides an important layer of protection for injured workers, sparing them from having to through additional litigation and the through the additional burden of proving who was at fault before receiving benefits.
In Illinois, even though you don’t have to prove that your injury was your employer’s fault, you do have to prove that your injury happened at work or as a result of work. If you would like help to file your workers' compensation claim, Krol, Bongiorno, & Given’s experienced workers' comp lawyers are here to help. With over 60 years of combined legal experience, the KBG law firm is a leader in the field of workers’ compensation law and we have earned the reputation as aggressive advocates for injured workers before the IWCC.