Hicks v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that “claims for occupational disease which manifests outside of the 300-week period prescribed by the [Workers’ Compensation] Act do not fall within the purview of the Act, and, therefore, … the exclusivity provision of Section 303(a
• stating that where issues raise questions of law, “our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary”
• asserting without citation that the “catch-all definition [of the ODA] ... has been viewed as including [mesothelioma]”
• justifying the decision based upon the law’s remedial purpose and the likely consequences of an alternative interpretation
• engaging in statutory construction of the Act first, explaining it is the Court’s “policy to resolve claims on non-constitutional grounds when it is possible to do so”
• “Assuming, for purposes of argument, that Employers’ interpretation of Section 301(c)(2) also is reasonable, such that there exists an ambiguity, we turn, as the parties do in the alternative, to further principles of statutory construction.” (internal citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).