I'm guessing, but I'm reading it as saying that certain common law rules when written in accordance to the usual construction are not applicable to [or are in conflict with] provisions of WCL AND that those ("the same") common laws should instead be given [by the courts] a remedial construction so that "the objects and purposes of this chapter may be realized..."

Sheesh, why don't they just say that no matter how the local law's worded, the court is supposed to support a definition that favors or is in accord with WCL.

Here's a try:

When judges interpret a statute, they are supposed to be bound by the actual words of the statute even if the statute differs from the common law -- which is the end result of decisions in thousands of cases going far back in English history. The result may not seem fair, but the reasoning is that if the legislature that wrote the law wanted a different result, they should have used different words (or should amend the statute in the future).

The Worker's Compensation Law, though, shouldn't be interpreted so narrowly. It's addressing something in a way that the common law doesn't, and where it's unclear the courts may interpret it to achieve a fair (equitable) result.

By contrast, tax law is usually strictly construed. The alternative minimum tax, for example was enacted to prevent rich people from avoiding tax by using loopholes in the tax code. But it lists the standard deduction and personal exemptions as "tax preference items," so courts have upheld the imposition of the AMT on, for example, a middle-class family that had lots of kids (hence many personal exemptions) but did not claim any exotic deductions or depreciation.

Meldy, what I hear you saying is, "If the common law is in conflict with WCL, WCL course of actions supersede common law actions."

If so, I just hit the jackpot in my case. We're looking at what we should be pursuing, and in which order. If not, I understand, and I'll take a stab at trying to undertand it again. (I have all the foot work done on the WCL direction, yea!)

Check for the interpretation of "derogation" - I was going by what I learned [a long time ago] in conjunction with health regs, and possibly that doesn't fit with WCL laws. But the general interpretation was that the local law couldn't override, supercede, or disagree with state reg but had to be written -or rewritten by the court- to be in agreement -or at least not in conflict- with the state reg.

Neil's neatly put explanation is a good guideline.

Since the laws in our state were based on the old English system our founders inherited ..... if anything lay outside of a written statute, then it was assumed that the old common law was adhered to.

Our state thought this was a pressing enough issue they passed a huge group of revised statutes in 1971 and most legal paragraphs preface the words with according to "blah, blah revised code"

As our country gets farther and farther away from state jurisdicions in those areas crossing state lines, then it would likely be necessary to remind readers that those federal issues supercede any state statutes. IOW what everyone else said.

This is actually state v. state codes; i.e. no local or federal. Yes, Neil's idea outlined my last sentence for my assignment. I think I'm done now (with my assignment, now if I could just finish work and packing the house for moving). I appreciate the answers, thank you!

I think it says forget about common law. The WC Law is written to fix inequities and should be interpreted in such a way that those inequities are in fact remedied.

Where's Andie? Her DH is an attorney and could probably wade through it pretty quickly.