Veco, Inc. v. Wolfer

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the employer rebutted the presumption of com-pensability by presenting circumstantial evidence, coupled with the employee’s statements regarding his condition, to create a “reasonable inference” that the new injury was “merely a flare-up” of the earlier injury
• concluding that the employer rebutted the presumption of compensability by presenting circumstantial evidence, coupled with the employee's statements regarding his condition, to create a \reasonable inference\ that the new injury was \merely a flare-up\ of the earlier injury
• rejecting the employee's claim that the employer was required to produce expert medical evidence to rebut the presumption of compensability
• rejecting the employee’s claim that the employer was required to produce expert medical evidence to rebut the presumption of compensability
• listing ability to do one’s job as fact that can be established through lay testimony
• applying presumption to dispute between insurer and self-insured employer over who pays worker’s benefits

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).