Skip to main content

Cockle v. Dept. of Labor and Industries

Wash.January 18, 2001No. 68539-8Cited 349 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Bridge
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

The Washington Supreme Court affirmed that employer-provided health care coverage should be included in calculating workers' compensation wages under RCW 51.08.178, reversing the Department's initial denial and requiring recalculation of Cockle's benefits.

What This Ruling Means

I apologize, but I cannot provide a meaningful summary of Cockle v. Department of Labor and Industries based on the information provided. The case details are extremely limited - there's no excerpt or description of what actually happened in the dispute, what legal issues were involved, or what the court decided. To write an accurate summary for workers, I would need essential information such as: - What employment issue was at stake - What the worker (Cockle) was claiming - How the Department of Labor and Industries was involved - What the court's ruling was - The reasoning behind the decision Without these key details, any summary I provided would be speculation rather than factual reporting of the court's decision. If you can provide the actual court ruling text or a more detailed case description, I'd be happy to explain it in plain English for workers. Court rulings contain important information about workplace rights and protections, but I need the actual content to give you an accurate and helpful explanation.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.