Legal Opinion · Dissent

Harry v. Buse Timber & Sales, Inc.

Washington Supreme Court

Decided February 26, 2009No. 79613-1Published

1DissentFairhurst, J.

¶37 (dissenting) — The legislature has provided an unambiguous mechanism for establishing compensation benefits for claims resulting from progressive hearing loss. While that scheme may not be optimal, the legislature has made its decision about which schedule of benefits will be used. The majority, however, claims the statutory prescriptions are ambiguous and has fashioned its own new rule without statutory authority and contrary to case law. Because this attempt to remedy a perceived inequity usurps the role of the legislature and is strained, I respectfully dissent.

¶38 Benefits to workers…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Department of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, L.L.C.Washington Supreme Court · 2002
  2. State, Dept. of Ecology v. Campbell & GwinnWashington Supreme Court · 2002
  3. State v. J.P.Washington Supreme Court · 2003
  4. State v. JacobsWashington Supreme Court · 2005
  5. Cockle v. Dept. of Labor and IndustriesWashington Supreme Court · 2001

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

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

Powered by the Exa API