Jane Hays was involved in a car accident resulting in losing one of her legs after leaving from a work meeting. The Texas Division of workers Compensation demanded to starts giving Hays her workers compensation for the costs of her medical expenses, but the insurer, Texas Political Subdivision, denied those claims because they felt she shouldn't have be considered on the job while driving after the meeting.
Hays lawyer, Brad Mcleelan felt like that was the most ridiculous reason to deny her compensation. Mcleelan pointed out the fact that the order to insure Hays was clear and reasonable enough if The Texas Division of workers Compensation already stated to go ahead and compensate her. He believes Hays was till on the clock after leaving the meeting.
On the other hand, Texas Political Subdivisions said that Hays was not on the clock after leaving the meeting. They said in the TPS system, Hays was not shown on the clock and was already reimbursed for mileage after leaving the meeting. They stated that Hays was on the clock during the meeting, but after she left she was no longer working.
Hays plan to sue TPS for having bad faith and for failing to follow through with their obligations. I'm siding with Hays because for them to pay for everything including mileage, but don't compensate for any medical care for accidents that happen on the way there and back is sad. Whether Hays was on the clock or not I feel like that's besides the fact, and should be covered for any medical care due to accidents that happened there and on the way back.
http://www.texastribune.org/2015/09/25/amputee-awarded-benefits-rare-order/

Ken Paxton, Texas attorney general asked the U.S Supreme court to deny a legal challenge to state abortion restrictions. Monday, state attorneys claims that the lower courts made the right decision on rejecting a challenge to abortion restrictions. They also feel like the abortion providers who appealed to the higher courts had a request that covered too many subjects to go over and had little evidence proving that abortion restrictions are unconstitutional.
On the other side, attorneys for reproductive rights argues the restrictions are unconstitutional and creates a burden on women who have to travel many miles to get to the nearest abortion clinic. they make another argument that most of the abortion clinics that have "hospital-like" standards are in the major cities.
Paxton office continues to argue due to the fact that the abortion providers have no proof of their claims of it being a burden to most women or proof of it being unconstitutional. They also try  to convince the courts to follow through with the decision they made in the past which rejects the challenge. Paxtons audience for this article would be the people of the justices of the supreme court. Since the opponents are trying to defend their claim by saying the restriction of abortions are unconstitutional, Paxton uses a method by asking for proof of what the abortion providers claims is unconstitutional and a burden, which they don't have.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/10/05/paxton-scotus-should-reject-review-abortion-rules/

Hello everyone!