Bradley County v. Adams
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1DissentJohn A. Fogleman, Justice
In view of! the testimony in this case, I am compelled to register! my dissent from the action of the majority.
There is no presumption that a claim for compensation benefits comes within the provisions of the workmen’s compensation law. Duke v. Pekin Wood Products Co., 223 Ark. 182, 264 S. W. 2d 834. In reiterating previous holdings that the burden is on the claimant to show a causal connection between an employee’s heart attack and his work, this court has said that any change in that rule is a matter for the legislature and not the judiciary. Auto Salvage Company v. Rogers, 232 Ark. 1013,…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Gillikin v. BurbageSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
- Bertram v. WunningMissouri Court of Appeals · 1965
- Bearman v. Prudential Ins. Co. Of America. Bearman v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n. Bearman v. Order of United Commercial Travelers of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1951
- Brandt v. Mansfield Rapid Transit, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1950
- Henderson v. Union Pacific RailroadOregon Supreme Court · 1950
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.