Maxwell, Inc. v. Williams-McWilliams Industries, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• acknowledging CRB’s expertise in interpreting Workers’ Compensation Act and remanding for CRB to address issue in first instance
• upholding an independent medical examiner’s assessment where an examiner concluded—and the treating physician conceded—petitioner’s medical condition resulted from natural progression of prior condition and not from a work-related injury
• “acknowledging] the CRB’s expertise and responsibility for administering the Workers’ Compensation Act,” the court “remand[s] the case to enable the CRB to consider in the first instance” whether its decision was consistent with earlier CRB decision
• “acknowledg[ing] the CRB’s expertise and responsibility for administering the Workers’ Compensation Act, [court] conclude[s] that the appropriate course is to remand the case to enable the CRB to consider [a statutory interpretation issue] in 23 the first instance”
• “[A]s a general rule, unexplained inconsistencies in agency policy require a remand to the agency to allow it to supply a reasoned analysis indicating that prior policies and standards are being deliberately changed, not casually ignored.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).