Sutton v. B & L EXPRESS

How courts have described this case

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

• deferring to the Board’s finding that the claimant’s employment had not exposed him to the conditions that resulted in a heart attack
• claimant entitled to benefits only “if he could show his employment either directly caused his heart disease or aggravated his pre-existing condition to cause the heart disease”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).