Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Fulton v. Soopers

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided January 13, 1992No. 91SC76Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Lohr

I concur in part IIA of the majority opinion. I dissent to part IIB, however, because I am persuaded that the administrative law judge and the appellate tribunals that have reviewed this case have misconstrued the standard established by section 8-42-110(3), 3B C.R.S. (1990 Supp.), to determine whether an employer is entitled to limit an award of permanent partial disability benefits by reemploying an injured employee. I would remand the case for application of what I believe to be the correct standard.

Section 8-42-110(3) creates an incentive for employers to retain or reemploy persons who…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Fulton v. King SoopersColorado Court of Appeals · 1990

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API