Legal Opinion

Rushing v. ALCOA, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided January 4, 2005No. 31019-8-IIPublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

¶1 — Daniel Rushing was injured while working for ALCOA. On its accident report form, ALCOA checked the box “yes” next to the question “Will you pay this employee full salary or wages during period of disability?” But ALCOA actually paid Rushing time-loss compensation. Years later, when Rushing discovered ALCOA’s answer on the report form, he claimed the full amount of his wages. The Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals (BILA) ruled against Rushing, and the superior court affirmed on summary judgment. Because ALCOA was not legally bound by its answer on the form, we affirm.

Armstrong, J.

FACTS

¶…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Wilson v. SteinbachWashington Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Weyerhaeuser Company v. TriWashington Supreme Court · 1991
  3. King County v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1967
  4. Rhoad v. McLEAN TRUCKING COMPANYWashington Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Rector v. Department of Labor & IndustriesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1991

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Hi-Way Fuel Co. v. Estate of AllynCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2005
  2. Hi-Way Fuel Co. v. Estate of AllynCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2005
  3. Vaux-Michel v. SimmonsCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2013
  4. Courtney R. Black, V Comcast CorporationCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2015
  5. In Re Estate Of T. Mark Stover Teresa Vaux-michel, Resp/cr-app. v. Anne Simmons, App./cr-resp.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2013

1 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