Legal Opinion · Dissent

Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. Overdorff

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided March 20, 1990No. 10056-1-IIIPublished

1DissentThompson, J.

(dissenting)—I am constrained to dissent since I disagree with the majority's conclusion that the allowance of time loss benefits to Mr. Overdorff is contrary to the legislative intent of the workers' compensation act. This conclusion overlooks the clear and unambiguous language of RCW 51.32.090(3), which provides:

As soon as recovery is so complete that the present earning power of the worker, at any kind of work, is restored to that existing at the time of the occurrence of the injury, the [time loss] payments shall cease.

(Italics mine.) The italicized phrase focuses on the worker's physical…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. StandiferWashington Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Gaines v. Department of Labor & IndustriesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1969
  3. Farver v. Department of Retirement SystemsWashington Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Port of Edmonds v. Public Employment Relations CommissionWashington Supreme Court · 1985

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

Powered by the Exa API