Vu v. John Morrell & Co.
South Dakota Supreme Court
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
- Loewen v. Hyman Freightways, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1997
- Vaughn v. John Morrell & Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 2000
- Miller v. Lake Area HospitalSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1996
- Bearshield v. City of GregorySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1979
- M. M. Sundt Construction Co. v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1979
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Faircloth v. Raven Industries, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 2000
- Kuhle v. Lecy ChiropracticSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2006
- McNeil v. Superior Siding, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 2009
- Sopko v. C & R TRANSFER COMPANY, INC.South Dakota Supreme Court · 2003
- Faircloth v. Raven Industries, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 2000
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.