Legal Opinion
Pulsifer v. Pueblo Professional Contractors, Inc.
Supreme Court of Colorado
Decided June 25, 2007No. 07SA24PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court 1
RULE MADE ABSOLUTE
2Opinion of the Court · MartinezJustice Martinez
We issued a rule to show cause to determine whether the trial court’s ruling that the plaintiffs maximum recovery for a work related injury is not limited to fifteen thousand dollars under the Workers’ Compensation Act was correct. We now make the rule absolute and hold that the plaintiff is within the category of individuals subject to the statutory limit and that he is not excepted from the limit.
I. Facts and Procedural History
The respondent Gordon Pulsifer (“Pulsi-fer”) is a painter. He was hired as a subcontractor to work on the construction of the Stonegate Village…
3Cases cited10 opinions
- Davison v. Industrial Claim Appeals OfficeSupreme Court of Colorado · 2004
- State Engineer v. Castle Meadows, Inc.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1993
- Frohlick Crane Service, Inc. v. MacKSupreme Court of Colorado · 1973
- Chartier v. Winslow Crane Service CompanySupreme Court of Colorado · 1960
- Frank M. Hall & Co. v. NewsomSupreme Court of Colorado · 2005
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by11 opinions
- Pinnacol Assurance v. HoffSupreme Court of Colorado · 2016
- Snook v. Joyce Homes, Inc.Colorado Court of Appeals · 2009
- People v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Colorado · 2008
- Continental Divide Insurance Co. v. DickinsonColorado Court of Appeals · 2007
- Gould v. City of StamfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2019
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.