Skip to main content

Henderson v. Public Employees Retirement Board

Or. Ct. App.December 8, 2004No. 99-0421; A118731
Defendant WinLane County
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Haselton, Linder, Ortega
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

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

The court affirmed the Public Employees Retirement Board's denial of petitioner's disability retirement benefits, finding that she failed to establish that her work exposures were the efficient, dominant, and proximate cause of her disability.

What This Ruling Means

**Henderson v. Public Employees Retirement Board: Disability Retirement Benefits Denied** A Lane County employee named Henderson sought disability retirement benefits, claiming that exposures at her workplace caused her disability. She argued that her job conditions directly led to her medical condition, making her eligible for special retirement benefits available to workers who become disabled due to work-related causes. The Public Employees Retirement Board rejected Henderson's application for disability benefits. When she challenged this decision in court, the judges sided with the retirement board. The court ruled that Henderson failed to prove her workplace exposures were the main, direct cause of her disability. To qualify for these benefits, workers must show their job was the primary factor that caused their condition. **What This Means for Workers:** This ruling highlights how difficult it can be to obtain disability retirement benefits based on workplace exposures. Workers must provide strong evidence that their job directly caused their disability—not just contributed to it. If you're considering applying for similar benefits, you'll need comprehensive medical documentation linking your condition specifically to workplace factors. The standards for proving work-related disability are quite strict, so gathering thorough evidence and expert medical opinions is essential for a successful claim.

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

Similar Rulings

Dell Hackett, and Other Similarly Situated Employees Eric R. Langford v. Lane County
9th CircuitAug 1996
Defendant Win
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church
D.C. CircuitJul 1997
Remanded
People in re S.L. and A.L
COLOCTAPPDec 2017

The Rio Blanco County Department of Human Services (Department) became involved with the parents in this case as a result of concerns about the children's welfare due to the condition of the family home, the parents' use of methamphetamine, and criminal cases involving the parents. Attempts at voluntary services failed, and on the Department's petition for dependency and neglect, the district court ultimately terminated the parents' rights. On appeal, the parents contended that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their children. Specifically, the parents contended that the Department did not give them sufficient time to complete the services under their treatment plans and failed to accommodate their drug testing needs. The termination hearing was not held until more than a year after the motion to terminate was filed. For nine months before the motion to terminate was filed, the Department provided numerous services to the parents, including substance abuse therapy, therapeutic visitation supervision, drug abuse monitoring, and a parental capacity evaluation. The Department also provided counseling for the children. Both parents missed drug tests and tested positive during the testing period, and both were arrested for possession of methamphetamine during the pendency of the case. The Department made reasonable accommodations to meet the parents' needs and the parents had sufficient time to comply with their treatment plans. The record supports the trial court's findings that termination was appropriate because (1) the court-approved appropriate treatment plan had not been complied with by the parents or had not been successful in rehabilitating them (2) the parents were unfit and (3) the conduct or condition of the parents was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Father also contended that the trial court's decision to interview the 9-year-old twin children together in chambers fundamentally and seriously affected the basi

Defendant Win
Shelley Savage v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205, Maricopa County
9th CircuitSep 2003
Plaintiff Win
James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab
9th CircuitNov 2000
Mixed Result

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.