Skip to main content

Anderson v. Ford Motor Company

D. Kan.September 29, 2021No. 2:21-cv-02097
Plaintiff WinFord Motor Company$1,710 awarded
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Employment
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unknown
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal
State
Kansas

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

The employee prevailed in her petition to review for workers' compensation benefits. The court affirmed the commission's decision awarding payment of medical and hospital bills exceeding statutory maxima, authorization for future necessary treatment, permission for major surgery, and attorney's fees.

What This Ruling Means

**Anderson v. Ford Motor Company: Worker Wins Compensation Fight** This case involved a Ford Motor Company employee who was injured on the job and needed workers' compensation benefits. Anderson had to fight for coverage of her medical expenses and treatment after Ford's insurance company apparently tried to limit what they would pay for her workplace injury. The court sided completely with Anderson. The judge confirmed that Ford must pay all of her medical and hospital bills, even though the costs exceeded the usual limits set by law. The court also ruled that Anderson can get approval for future medical treatment she needs, including major surgery related to her work injury. Additionally, Ford was ordered to pay Anderson's attorney fees for having to take this fight to court. This ruling is significant for workers because it shows that employers can't simply cap medical expenses at minimum amounts when employees suffer serious workplace injuries. If you're hurt on the job and need extensive medical care, this case demonstrates that courts will protect your right to proper treatment. It also shows that if your employer forces you to go to court to get the benefits you deserve, they may have to pay your legal costs too.

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

Similar Rulings

International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America and its Local 897
W.D.N.Y.Sep 2025
Mixed Result
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.