Go to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.comGo to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.com
VitalLaw®
  • Find answers to your questions
  • Log in to access your subscriptions
In depth. On point.
In depth. On point.
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
In depth. On point.
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations
    • TOP STORY: Privacy implications of data broker practices discussed at Senate Commerce Committee hearing
    • ADVERTISING—N.Y. Sup.: Consumer action over Staples “easy rebates” dismissed
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: FTC approves Polypore International’s application to sell Microporous to Seven Mile Capital Partners
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: Justice Department offers testimony on Supreme Court precedents on mandatory arbitration requirements
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: Two real estate investors agree to plead guilty to bid rigging at California foreclosure auctions
    • ANTITRUST—D. Kan.: Dow can relitigate conspiracy issue in opt-out actions in urethane price fixing case
    • CONSUMER PROTECTION NEWS: Democratic lawmakers seek FTC review of consumer reporting agency marketing practices
    • CONSUMER PROTECTION NEWS: FTC proposes changes to Energy Labeling Rule
    • CONSUMER PROTECTION NEWS: Proposal would require online retailers to provide total cost confirmation before order placement
    • FRANCHISING & DISTRIBUTION NEWS: IFA praises bill to boost franchise small business ownership opportunities for veterans
    • FRANCHISING & DISTRIBUTION—Cal. App.: Dissolution of preliminary injunction, permitting franchisee restaurant operation, upheld
    • RICO NEWS: Employees petition Supreme Court to consider injury under RICO
    • STATE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES—Cal. App.: Trial court erred by not allowing amendment of warranty holders’ UCL claims
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations

    Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, RICO NEWS: Employees petition Supreme Court to consider injury under RICO, (Dec 18, 2013)

    Law Firms Mentioned:Maddin Hauser Wartell, Roth & Heller, P.C. | Marshall Lasser, P.C.
    Organizations Mentioned:Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc. | Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc.

    By Jody Coultas, J.D.

    Employees of Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc. have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati that the employees had not established an injury to business or property within the meaning of the Racketeer In ...

    By Jody Coultas, J.D.

    Employees of Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc. have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati that the employees had not established an injury to business or property within the meaning of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). A judgment of a district court dismissing the claims was reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings (Jackson v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc., Dkt. 13-712).

    In their complaint, the employees alleged that Coca-Cola conspired with workers’ compensation benefits claims administrator Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. and an examining physician to revoke or deny workers’ compensation benefits. The defendants allegedly falsely represented eligibility for benefits, falsely represented the defendants’ obligations under Michigan workers’ compensation law, falsely opined that injuries were not work-related, and willfully ignored evidence by other physicians

    The employees’ petition for certiorari, filed on December 11, asked whether a plaintiff states a RICO claim where the injury is one to a property interest that has a connection to personal property. An en banc Six Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a panel decision and held that the employees failed to establish an injury to property as required by RICO. The court noted that workers’ compensation benefits that reflected pecuniary losses associated with an underlying personal injury. Unlike the Sixth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit has held that RICO claims can be based on injuries to proeprty interests derived from personal injuries. The employees ask the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve this conflict created by the Sixth Circuit’s decision. Also, the petition asked the Supreme Court to find that the Sixth Circuit’s interpretation of the RICO injury requirement was erroneous.

    Attorneys: Marshall Lasser (Marshall Lasser, P.C.) for Clifton Jackson. Kathleen H. Klaus (Maddin Hauser Wartell, Roth & Heller, P.C.) for Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc.

    Companies: Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc.; Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc.

    News: RICO

    © 2026 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use