By Jerry Marcinkoski Michigan Self Insurers’ Assocation Executive Secretary Emeritus Attorney, Of Counsel Lacey & Jones, Birmingham, Michigan

 “Any person injured in his business OR PROPERTY by reason of a violation of …. may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district court and SHALL RECOVER THREEFOLD THE DAMAGES HE SUSTAINS AND THE COST OF THE SUIT, INCLUDING A REASONABLE ATTORNEY’S FEE …” 18 U.S.C. Section 1964(c).

 Exclusive Remedy Provisions  Federalism/States’ Rights Concerns

 The defendants  The plaintiffs  The amici curiae  M utually A ssured D estruction

 WC Statute does not foreclose RICO suit  There’s an injury to “property”  So what if the plaintiffs settled their wc cases?  Plaintiffs win (temporarily)

 En banc decision: 10+1 vs 5  No injury to “property,” it’s a personal injury  Defendants win  U.S. Supreme Court declines to review or reverse

 Jackson decision did not turn on exclusive remedy or federalism  Indications are that maybe congress could allow federal courts to entertain RICO suits to ensure a fraud-free workers’ compensation scheme  But, right now ALL IS WELL!