Larson Manufacturing Co. v. Thorson

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing the fact an employee is able to continue at his or her job does not prove the employee has suffered no loss of earning capacity
• connecting “permanent adverse impact” with the three-element test using the abbreviation “i.e.,” meaning “in other words”
• stating claimant “deemed to know” the three factors “when she knows her physical condition is serious enough to have permanent adverse impact on her employment or employability”
• using the phrase “perma- nent adverse impact” as a short-hand for the three elements of the discovery rule test: nature, seriousness, and probable compensable character of the injury
• noting the fact that claimant’s “continued full-time work including some overtime” and had “a history of increased actual earning after the date” of injury “certainly mitigated the extent of industrial disability”
• addressing due process notice claim and finding employer had actual notice of injury date based on assignment of employee to light duty, petition alleging disability over six year period and access to employee’s medical records

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).