T.I.M.E.-D.C. v. Schuirman’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 62 Wash. 2d 22 - Ashenbrenner v. Department of Labor & Industries · 59 Wash. 2d 772 - Jussila v. Department of Labor & Industries · 29 Wash. 2d 879 - Bodine v. Department of Labor & Industries
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“By withdrawing from the established scheme of funding workman’s compensation benefits by regular payment of premiums and becoming a self-insurer, T.I.M.E.-D.C. removed itself from coverage. Because it did not pay into the second injury fund, it acquired no right to benefit therefrom.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“a self-insured employer shall pay directly into the reserve fund only the accident cost which would have resulted solely from said further injury or disease . . and RCW 51.44.040(3) provides an assessment for the second injury fund shall be imposed on self-insurers to ensure they pay into the fund in proportion to the payments made from the fund on account of claims made against them. Until these amendments were effective, the second injury fund was financed by premiums paid by employers into the accident fund on the basis of their experience rating. RCW 51.44.040. Only state-insured employers paid into the accident fund and DLI was only required to maintain "experience ratings”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.