Legal Opinion

Vu v. John Morrell & Co.

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided August 9, 2000No. NonePublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SABERS, Justice.

[¶ 1.] The Department of Labor (DOL) determined that Mary Vu was not entitled to receive worker’s compensation benefits from John Morrell <& Company (Morrell) because she failed to provide timely notice. Mary appealed. The circuit court affirmed. We reverse and remand.

FACTS

[112.] Mary Vu is thirty-four-years-old. She started work at Morrell on May 5, 1987 as a janitor. She developed problems with her wrist and was moved to a position in pork cut.1 After two to three weeks, she became a ham saw operator, where she remained for one and one-half years.

[¶ 3.] As a ham saw…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Loewen v. Hyman Freightways, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Vaughn v. John Morrell & Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 2000
  3. Miller v. Lake Area HospitalSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1996
  4. Bearshield v. City of GregorySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1979
  5. M. M. Sundt Construction Co. v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1979

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Faircloth v. Raven Industries, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Kuhle v. Lecy ChiropracticSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2006
  3. McNeil v. Superior Siding, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 2009
  4. Sopko v. C & R TRANSFER COMPANY, INC.South Dakota Supreme Court · 2003
  5. Faircloth v. Raven Industries, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 2000

1 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