Search for: "Arizona Employers' Liability Cases"
Results 141 - 160
of 403
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Feb 2016, 11:57 am
This cheat sheet deals only with individual states – no issues of nationwide statutory service of process.To help our readers, we note in each case if it is: (1) a prescription medical product liability case; (2) a product liability case not involving a prescription medical product; or (3) it’s not a product liability case at all. [read post]
6 Jan 2015, 10:25 pm
The other five cases are from Florida,Texas, Arizona, Washington and Georgia. [read post]
20 Aug 2013, 7:12 am
It was clear to me that this was a case of significant liability and I was able to settle the case THAT day by calling the adjuster and securing $70,000 for a compromise and release. [read post]
10 Jan 2011, 2:32 pm
The Tucson, Arizona wrongful death lawyers at Bache & Lynch have experience in proving these losses and can answer your questions about this. [read post]
25 Sep 2014, 6:28 am
This could also become the basis for arguments that related companies received proper notice of EEOC charges or were joint employers for purposes of liability. [read post]
26 Sep 2018, 9:00 pm
You also must file with the MVD an SR-22 certificate, which is liability insurance for high risk policies. [read post]
22 Apr 2013, 4:15 am
In order to treat injured workers, doctors would have to attest to a "reasonable degree of medical certainty" that more than 50% of the need for medical treatment was caused by in injury.Tennessee's employers have done a masterful job of deflecting liability for work-related injuries or illnesses in this legislative session.It seems to me that the only injuries that are going to fall within the jurisdiction of workers' compensation in Tennessee are very specific, completely… [read post]
12 Apr 2018, 7:42 pm
In fiscal year 2017 alone, WHD’s enforcement statistics restaurant industry initiative targeting restaurant employers enabled it to successfully recover $42,936,552 for 44,363 from 5,446 cases brought against restaurant employers. [read post]
23 Aug 2018, 6:52 pm
As discussed below, these potential claims and legislation will not only impact Employment Practices Liability (“EPL”) policies, but also have the potential to affect directors and officers, general liability and other types of insurance policies. [read post]
31 Aug 2011, 12:39 pm
The new law provides some liability protection for employers. [read post]
29 Sep 2010, 3:47 pm
The court remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. [read post]
18 Jan 2013, 5:40 am
Making settlement offers in 36 cases to employees who filed whistleblower complaints with OSHA alleging they were harmed by one or more of the company’s previous policies. [read post]
17 Dec 2017, 9:07 am
From November 2001 until October 2017, Guttman was associated with United Planners out of the firm’s Phoenix, Arizona office location. [read post]
27 Jun 2011, 5:44 pm
A small but growing trend in personal injury liability cases is beginning to make an appearance in workers compensation claims, “lawsuit funding loans. [read post]
12 Dec 2014, 9:56 am
Both the state of Arizona and the employee sued ASARCO; the cases were consolidated, and a federal jury found the employer liable for sexual harassment but not retaliation or constructive discharge. [read post]
16 Sep 2019, 1:37 pm
Arizona has a 2-year Statute of Limitations for personal injury cases, meaning you must file your lawsuit within two years of the accident. [read post]
17 Nov 2017, 4:28 am
And while we hope that you find these cases as interesting and amusing as we do — and laugh along with us in the telling — make no mistake, we’ll also be bringing analysis and legal discussion of those cases. [read post]
27 May 2011, 11:10 am
Employment rules generally vary from state to state. [read post]
8 May 2017, 9:01 pm
Prior to working there, she had worked as a middle school math teacher in Arizona. [read post]
27 Nov 2013, 12:14 pm
The Ross Court reasoned that California’s Compassionate Use Act (Proposition 215) was intended to protect physicians and users from criminal liability, and was not intended to apply in the employment context. [read post]
