Legal Opinion

Harry v. Buse Timber & Sales, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided May 1, 2006No. 55902-8-IPublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBaker, J.

¶1 Noise-related hearing loss is not a progressive disease, yet it has been referred to as “progressive” in workers’ compensation case law.1 And it is considered to be “partially disabling” long before the worker is perceptibly impaired. These two facts have led to the strange outcome below in this case: a worker is paid for his lost hearing based on a 1974 schedule of benefits for damage to his hearing that occurred long after 1974. His self-insured employer knew of, but did not disclose, his hearing loss for almost 30 years and as a result has succeeded in paying for the disability at the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Bath Iron Works Corp. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation ProgramsSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  2. Boeing Co. v. HeidyWashington Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Boeing Co. v. HeidyWashington Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Kilpatrick v. Department of Labor & IndustriesWashington Supreme Court · 1995
  5. McIndoe v. Department of LaborWashington Supreme Court · 2001

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Harry v. Buse Timber & Sales, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2009
  2. Harry v. Buse Timber & Sales, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2006
  3. Harry v. Buse Timber & Sales, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2009

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API