Ford Motor Company v. Hunt

494 S.E.2d 152, 26 Va. App. 231 (1997)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Ford Motor Company v. Hunt

Virginia Court of Appeals
494 S.E.2d 152, 26 Va. App. 231 (1997)

Facts

In 1993 Larry I. Hunt (plaintiff) suffered a work-related injury to his right knee while working at a plant of the Ford Motor Company (Ford) (defendant). Hunt’s physician, Dr. Sheldon Cohn, gave him several work restrictions, and Hunt worked in a light-duty capacity. Over the next two years, Hunt’s work restrictions varied slightly, but Hunt was never able to return to work in his full capacity. In December 1995, Dr. Cohn determined that Hunt had arthrosis of his right knee that was not work related. Dr. Cohn continued Hunt’s permanent work restrictions of no squatting, crawling, or climbing, stating that these restrictions were due to his workplace injury. Dr. Cohn also gave Hunt other restrictions of not standing for more than 30 minutes at a time with 10-minute breaks in between, noting that these restrictions were mainly for arthritis. Ford could not accommodate these restrictions, and Hunt sought temporary total-disability compensation. Hunt began looking for other work, including by contacting potential employers verbally and checking newspaper ads. Hunt did not apply for many positions, because he could not perform them due to his restrictions. Hunt maintained a record of employers he contacted. In April 1996, Hunt found a job within his restrictions as a painter’s assistant that was significantly lower paying than his job at Ford, and he sought temporary partial-disability compensation. At the hearing, Hunt testified that he did not have arthritis before his work injury in 1993, and he did not have arthritis anywhere else. Hunt also provided a second opinion from Dr. Michael T. Longstreet, who opined that Hunt did not have arthritis and Hunt’s symptoms were entirely work related. The deputy commissioner and later the commission found that Hunt’s partial disability had two causes, one work related and one not work related. The commission also found that Hunt had not marketed his residual capacity and was not entitled to benefits from December 1995 to April 1996, but awarded Hunt temporary partial-disability benefits beginning in April 1996. Ford appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Benton, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership