Skip to main content

Johnson v. Employee Benefits Insurance

Or. Ct. App.April 19, 1976No. No. 20173, CA 5673Cited 1 time
Plaintiff WinGTE Automatic Electric$8,097.46 awarded
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Langtry, Schwab, Thornton
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

Wrongful Termination

Outcome

The court affirmed the Industrial Commission's decision awarding the employee temporary total disability benefits and medical expenses for a work-related back injury sustained on October 1, 1976. The employer's appeal was denied.

What This Ruling Means

**Johnson v. Employee Benefits Insurance: Worker Wins Back Injury Case** This case involved an employee who suffered a back injury while working at GTE Automatic Electric on October 1, 1976. The worker filed for workers' compensation benefits, seeking coverage for medical expenses and disability payments while unable to work. The employer's insurance company initially disputed the claim, leading to a review by the Industrial Commission. The court sided with the injured worker, upholding the Industrial Commission's decision to award temporary total disability benefits and medical expenses totaling $8,097.46. When the employer appealed this decision, the appeals court denied their challenge, confirming that the worker deserved full compensation for the work-related injury. **What This Means for Workers:** This ruling reinforces important protections for employees who get hurt on the job. Workers have the right to receive both medical care and income replacement when they suffer work-related injuries that prevent them from working. Even when employers or their insurance companies fight these claims, workers can successfully challenge denials through the workers' compensation system. The case shows that courts will protect legitimate injury claims and ensure workers receive the benefits they're entitled to under workers' compensation laws.

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.