How on earth did a workers comp case go on for nearly 10 years? Is there a weird statute of limitations that allowed it only recently to be filed? Whatever the result it will be appealed. So don't plan on a final decision until another year at the least.

Workers Comp is actually looked upon as a very employer friendly system and is hated by trial lawyers. An injured employee is required to go to workers comp and CANNOT SUE THE EMPLOYER for on the job injuries including personal injuries. Why the adult industry would not want this protection escapes me. Its lawsuit insurance. I assure you that workers comp will pay far less for exposure to HIV or a lost limb than a civil jury.

The AVN article says:

Quote:

---

if Ms. Ashley was found to be an "employee" (as opposed to an independent contractor), "Dupree would be required to pay workers compensation to Ashley, or if for some reason Dupree

---

I believe that's incorrect. Workers Comp is an insurance program and the insurer or general fund would pay Brooke Ashley, not the employer. So why not a civil lawsuit instead I wonder? Perhaps she knows the producer is judgment proof and wants to recover from the general fund. Perhaps she blew the statute on the civil suit.

Quote:

---

Markman also said that whatever the outcome of the workers comp proceeding, he expected Ashley to file a civil lawsuit as well.

---

This happened in 99. The statute of limitations is 2-4 years tops. So no way there will be a lawsuit unless the workers comp filing tolled the statute of limitations on the civil suit.

Michael is correct that the judge will twist herself like a pretzel to find a way for Brooke not to get screwed in this case. The article says she had a contract, which should make it an easy decision. But if the independent contractor is directed on how to perform their work they are generally not an IC, but an employee.