Rustin v. District of Columbia

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that the exclusivity provision of the LHWCA ‘does not reach actions where the employer specifically intended to injure the employee’
• observing that the LHWCA’s exclusivity provision “does not reach actions where the employer specifically intended to injure the employee”
• explaining that the WCA “deprives employees and their representatives of the right to pursue common law tort suits . . . against their employers or co-workers if the injuries are covered 7 by the Act” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• finding no proof of specific intent by employer

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).