Hewing v. Peter Kiewit & Sons’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently June 1997
21 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Matter of Jordan v. . Decorative Co. · Whyte v. Industrial Commission · Karr v. Armstrong Tire & Rubber Co. · Vetter v. Alaska Workmen's Compensation Board · Hewing v. Alaska Workmen's Compensation Board
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Determination of wage-earning capacity. In a case of partial disability under AS 23.30.-190(20) or 23.30.200 the wage-earning capacity of an injured employee is determined by his actual earnings if the actual earnings fairly and reasonably represent his wage-earning capacity. If the employee has no actual earnings or his actual earnings do not fairly and reasonably represent his wage-earning capacity the board may, in the interest of justice, fix the wage earning capacity which is reasonable, having due regard to the nature of his injury, the degree of physical impairment, his usual employment, and any other factors or circumstances in the case which may affect his capacity to earn wages in his disabled condition, including the effect of disability as it may naturally extend into the future.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) In case of disability partial in character but permanent in quality the compensation is 66⅜ percent of the injured employee’s average weekly wages ..., and shall be paid to the employee as follows: (20) in all other cases in this class of disability the compensation is 662A percent of the difference between his average weekly wages and his wage-earning capacity after the injury in the same employment or otherwise, payable during the continuance of the partial disability ...; whenever the board determines that it is in the interest of justice, the liability of the employer for compensation, or any part of it as determined by the board, may be discharged by the payment of a lump sum (b) Total compensation paid under (a)(20) of this section may not exceed 160,000.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“on the strength not only of actual post-injury earnings but of any other available clues.” Id. at 186 . 6 . Contra ch. 79, § 1(b), SLA 1988 (“The legislature declares that the workers' compensation laws must not be construed by the courts in favor of any party.’’) (applicable to injuries sustained on or after July 1, 1988, ch. 79, § 48, SLA 1988). 7 . At the time of Bailey’s 1980 injury, AS 23.30.-190 provided in part: (a) In case of disability partial in character but permanent in quality the compensation is 66⅜ percent of the injured employee’s average weekly wages ..., and shall be paid to the employee as follows: (20) in all other cases in this class of disability the compensation is 662A percent of the difference between his average weekly wages and his wage-earning capacity after the injury in the same employment or otherwise, payable during the continuance of the partial disability ...; whenever the board determines that it is in the interest of justice, the liability of the employer for compensation, or any part of it as determined by the board, may be discharged by the payment of a lump sum (b) Total compensation paid under (a)(20) of this section may not exceed 160,000. 8 . "Permanent means lasting the rest of claimant’s life. A condition that, according to available medical opinion, will not improve during the claimant’s lifetime is deemed a permanent one.”
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.