Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Williams Companies v. Dunkelgod
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided November 20, 2012No. 108,990Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partGurich, J.
1 1 I agree with the portion of the majority opinion that holds that the statute in effect at the time of the claimant's injury did not limit the TTD compensation to a total of 300 weeks. However, I dissent to the award of a lift van. I join the portion of Justice Kau-ger's opinion that concludes Claimant is not entitled to the award of a lift van. I also dissent to the portion of the majority opinion that holds that the 2011 amendment to the standard of review applies prospectively only.
T2 This Court's workers' compensation case law directs that statutes may apply retroactively when the…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1988
- Hengemuhle v. Long Prairie JayceesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
- Rivas v. Parkland ManorSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2000
- Cole v. Silverado Foods, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2003
- King Manufacturing v. MeadowsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2005
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.