Legal Opinion

Strickland v. Primex Technologies

Court of Appeals of Arkansas

Decided June 25, 2003No. CA 02-778PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

John Mauzy Pittman, Judge.

The appellant in this workers’ compensation case filed a claim for benefits asserting that she contracted an occupational disease while employed by appellee Primex Technologies. The Commission denied her claim on the basis of its finding that she failed to give the statutorily-required written notice to her employer within ninety days of the time she first knew or should have known that she had contracted an occupational disease. For reversal, appellant contends that the Commission erred in finding that her failure to give notice of an occupational disease was not…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Poulan Weed Eater v. MarshallCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2002
  2. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. SandsCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2002
  3. Emerson Elec. v. GastonCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2001
  4. Horticare Landscape Management v. McDonaldCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2002
  5. Quality Service Railcar v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1991

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Cottage Café, Inc. v. ColletteCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2006
  2. Prock v. Bull Shoals LandingCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2012
  3. Hickey v. Gardisser ConstructionCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2009
  4. Morales v. MartinezCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2004
  5. Mack-Reynolds Appraisal Co. v. MortonCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2010

7 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