workers’ compensation premiums are entitled to priority. Largely, their conclusions have turned on whether an individual State’s program is monopolistic, requiring the participation of all employers operating within the State, or whether the state system merely “competes” with private insurers or requires employers to get private insurance. Compare New Neighborhoods v. West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Fund, 886 F.2d 714 (4th Cir.1989) (West Virginia system is monopolistic and mandatory, thus premiums owed the State are excise taxes entitled to priority) with Brock v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 796 F.2d 481 (D.C.Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1013, 107 S.Ct. 1887, 95 L.Ed.2d 494 (1987) and In re Metro Transportation Company, 117 B.R. 143 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1990) (<HOLDING>). The theory goes that where the State has
holding that an atwill employee who alleges retaliatory discharge for the filing of a workers compensation claim has stated a cause of action under pennsylvania law holding that premiums are fees rather than taxes for bankruptcy purposes due to competition in washington dc and pennsylvania workers compensation systems respectively holding because washington statute provided for acquitted defendants recovery of attorney fees by motion in criminal action rather than in independent civil action postacquittal attorney fees and costs were incurred in defense of criminal action and therefore subject to reimbursement holding that the parties choiceoflaw agreement as relating to workers compensation was appropriately avoided where it offended state public policy as reflected in express provisions of the pennsylvania workers compensation act holding that because maryland law expressly creates right to file workers compensation claim action exists for wrongful discharge for termination based solely on the filing of a workers compensation claim