Federal Mogul Corp. v. Taylor
Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
1Opinion of the Court
HOLMES, Judge.
This is a workmen’s compensation case.
The issues are agreed upon by the parties1 and are as follows:
1. Did the trial court err to reversal in finding that the employee’s skin condition arose out of and in the course of his employment?
2. Did the employee’s refusal of employment offered to him by the employer disen-title the employee to compensation?
We answer both in the negative and affirm.
The testimony reveals that the employee while in the employ of the employer worked with his hands in solutions of “coolant”; that employee developed a severe skin condition; that prior to this…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Gailey v. Peet Bros. Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1916
- Nashville Bridge Co. v. HoneycuttSupreme Court of Alabama · 1945
- Vulcraft, Inc. v. WilbanksCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1975
3Cited by2 opinions
- Dodson v. Atrax Div. of Wallace-Murray Corp.Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1983
- Albertville Nursing Home v. UptonCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1980