Quoting Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, a Washington appellate court held that a trial court’s refusal to give a jury instruction as to the odd lot rule was appropriate. The court reasoned that an “odd lot” worker need not show that he or she was incapable of performing any light or sedentary work; it was sufficient to show only that he or she was incapable of performing light or sedentary work of a general nature. In the instant case, however, all the alternative jobs within the workers’ medical limitations proposed by an employment specialist were full-time jobs of a general nature, not special work. None of the experts presented testimony, nor did counsel argue, that the injured worker could perform only work of a special limited nature. Since none of the proposed jobs within the worker’s medical limits were odd lot jobs, there was no need to instruct the jury on that doctrine.
Reported by Thomas A. Robinson, J.D.
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance. Bracketed citations link to lexis.com.
See Erb v. Department of Labor & Indus., 2013 Wash. App. LEXIS 2755 (Dec. 5, 2013) [2013 Wash. App. LEXIS 2755 (Dec. 5, 2013)]
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 83.01 [83.01]
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law.
Special Discount Price $79*; Books shipping now to customers!
Keep track of how the workers' comp landscape is changing with this 400+ page compendium. Here's what you get:
View the brochure & table of contents.
View sample pages.
Order online or contact Christine Hyatt at ph. 937-247-8166, or Email: Christine.E.Hyatt@lexisnexis.com.
PROMO CODE: WCEIA
*Price does not include sales tax, shipping or handling. Price subject to change without notice. Discount cannot be combined with other offers. Expires 12/31/2013.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site