Skip to main content

Domingo Alexander v. Director, Office of Workers Compensation Programs Triple a MacHine Shop, Inc.

9th CircuitJuly 16, 2002No. 00-70762Cited 6 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Noonan, Hawkins, Tashima
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 Ninth Circuit reversed the Benefits Review Board and held that Triple A Machine Shop is not entitled to a credit against its liability for settlements Alexander made with other employers, as those settlements were alternative awards made when liability was uncertain.

What This Ruling Means

**Worker Wins Fight Over Compensation Credits in Workplace Injury Case** Domingo Alexander was injured at work and received workers' compensation benefits. The dispute centered on whether his employer, Triple A Machine Shop, could reduce what they owed him by counting settlements Alexander had received from other employers for the same injury. Triple A Machine Shop argued they should get credit for these other settlements, meaning they could pay Alexander less money. A lower court initially agreed with the company. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed this decision. The court ruled that Triple A Machine Shop could not subtract the value of Alexander's settlements with other employers from their own liability. The court explained that these other settlements were "alternative awards" made when it wasn't clear who was responsible for the injury. **What This Means for Workers:** This ruling protects injured workers from having their compensation unfairly reduced. If you're hurt on the job and receive settlements from multiple sources while liability is being sorted out, your main employer cannot use those other payments to lower what they owe you. This ensures workers receive the full compensation they're entitled to under workers' compensation laws, rather than having employers shift costs to others.

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.