Five Recent Cases You Should Know About (6/20/2010)

Five Recent Cases You Should Know About (6/20/2010)

Larson’s Spotlight on Asbestos, Intentional Tort, Challenging Compensability, Interpreter Services, and Job Firing. Larson's surveys the latest case developments that you need to know about. Thomas A. Robinson, the staff writer for Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, has compiled the list below.

IL: Employer Owes Duty to Worker's Family for Asbestos Brought Home On Worker's Clothes

An Illinois appellate court has reversed a decision of a state trial court and has held that an employer owes an affirmative duty to protect the family of its employee from the dangers of asbestos brought home on work clothes of the employee. 

FREE VERSION: Access the case on lexisONE free case law. Click on tab for Free Case Law. Click on the radio button for Search by Citation. Enter this citation: 2010 Ill. App. LEXIS 557. Then click on the red button Search for Free. Note: If you haven’t registered for free at lexisONE, you will be prompted to do so in order to access the free case law.

FULLY FEATURED VERSION: Lexis.com subscribers can read the fully featured case here. See generally Larson's Workers' Compensation Law, §§ 100.04, 101.02, 101.03.

WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN lexisONE AND LexisNexis? Compare the differences between lexisONE free case law and LexisNexis fully featured case law to see what you get with each service.

MT: Employer Goes “One for Two” in Intentional Tort Cases Based on Faulty Propane Stove

The Supreme Court of Montana recently ruled that in two employee’s intentional tort actions filed against their employer for injuries sustained allegedly due to a faulty propane stove, one plaintiff’s action could proceed, but the others was properly dismissed under the state’s two-pronged intentional injury test that required: (1) an intentional and deliberate act specifically and actually intended to cause injury; and (2) actual knowledge of the injury's certainty.

FREE VERSION: Access the case on lexisONE free case law. Click on tab for Free Case Law. Click on the radio button for Search by Citation. Enter this citation: 2010 Mont. LEXIS 194. Then click on the red button Search for Free. Note: If you haven’t registered for free at lexisONE, you will be prompted to do so in order to access the free case law.

FULLY FEATURED VERSION: Lexis.com subscribers can read the fully featured case here. See generally Larson's Workers' Compensation Law, § 103.03.

WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN lexisONE AND LexisNexis? Compare the differences between lexisONE free case law and LexisNexis fully featured case law to see what you get with each service.

TX: Sixty-Day Deadline for Challenging Compensability Does Not Apply to Dispute Over Extent of Injury

The Supreme Court of Texas, citing its own earlier decision in State Office of Risk Mgmt. v. Lawton, 295 S.W.3d 646 (Tex. 2009), recently reiterated that the state’s 60-day deadline for challenging compensability does not apply to a dispute over the extent of the injury.

FREE VERSION: Access the case on lexisONE free case law. Click on tab for Free Case Law. Click on the radio button for Search by Citation. Enter this citation: 2010 Tex. LEXIS 418. Then click on the red button Search for Free. Note: If you haven’t registered for free at lexisONE, you will be prompted to do so in order to access the free case law.

FULLY FEATURED VERSION: Lexis.com subscribers can read the fully featured case here. See generally Larson's Workers' Compensation Law, § 126.01.

WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN lexisONE AND LexisNexis? Compare the differences between lexisONE free case law and LexisNexis fully featured case law to see what you get with each service.

WA: Non-indigent Claimants Have No Statutory Right to Interpreter Services at Government Expense

The Supreme Court of Washington recently held that claimants who initiated interactions with the Department and the Board, who are not indigent, have no statutory right to interpreter services under Rev. Code Wash 2.43; the Board has discretion to appoint interpreters for limited English proficiency individuals and if it exercises that discretion favorably, Rev. Code Wash 2.43.030(1) requires the Board to allow the interpreter to provide services throughout the proceeding, including attorney-client communications, but the requirement does not extend beyond the hearing itself.

FREE VERSION: Access the case on lexisONE free case law. Click on tab for Free Case Law. Click on the radio button for Search by Citation. Enter this citation: 2010 Wash. LEXIS 533. Then click on the red button Search for Free. Note: If you haven’t registered for free at lexisONE, you will be prompted to do so in order to access the free case law.

FULLY FEATURED VERSION: Lexis.com subscribers can read the fully featured case here. See generally Larson's Workers' Compensation Law, § 124.06.

WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN lexisONE AND LexisNexis? Compare the differences between lexisONE free case law and LexisNexis fully featured case law to see what you get with each service.

US: 7th Circuit Agrees Firing Was for Dishonesty and Not Related to Filing Workers’ Compensation Claim

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a grant of summary judgment by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in favor of the former employer in a retaliatory discharge action, finding in relevant part that the discharge was causally connected to his plan to file a claim for workers’ compensation benefits.  The employer contended it fired the employee for dishonest—surveillance video showed that he was driving a car when he had indicated he could not attend a fact-finding session (board of inquiry) because his phyisican had forbidden him to drive.

FREE VERSION: Access the case on lexisONE free case law. Click on tab for Free Case Law. Click on the radio button for Search by Citation. Enter this citation: 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 11907. Then click on the red button Search for Free. Note: If you haven’t registered for free at lexisONE, you will be prompted to do so in order to access the free case law.

FULLY FEATURED VERSION: Lexis.com subscribers can read the fully featured case here. See generally Larson's Workers' Compensation Law, § 104.07.

WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN lexisONE AND LexisNexis? Compare the differences between lexisONE free case law and LexisNexis fully featured case law to see what you get with each service.

Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law

 Offer expires June 30, 2010.