Cases — October 16th through 22nd
Workers Compensation/Occupational Safety and Disease
*Razo v. Colvin (10th Cir., October 21, 2016) (affirming denial of disability benefits and supplemental income because the ALJ properly addressed Razo’s impairments and the opinions of the treating physician and the vocational expert)
*Shelton v. Colvin (10th Cir., October 18, 2016) (affirming denial of disability benefits and supplemental income: substantial evidence supported the ALJ decision, which was free of legal error.
Labor Unions
United Steel, Paper & Forest v. Phillips 66 (10th Cir., October 17, 2016) (affirming district court judgment ordering arbitration, as the arbitration provision in the collective bargaining agreement was not susceptible to an interpretation excluding the grievances at issue)
*Cases marked with an asterisk are cases the 10th Circuit does not consider binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. They may be cited, however, for persuasive value under Fed.R.App.P. 32.1 and 10th Cir.R. 32.1.
*Razo v. Colvin (10th Cir., October 21, 2016) (affirming denial of disability benefits and supplemental income because the ALJ properly addressed Razo’s impairments and the opinions of the treating physician and the vocational expert)
*Shelton v. Colvin (10th Cir., October 18, 2016) (affirming denial of disability benefits and supplemental income: substantial evidence supported the ALJ decision, which was free of legal error.
Labor Unions
United Steel, Paper & Forest v. Phillips 66 (10th Cir., October 17, 2016) (affirming district court judgment ordering arbitration, as the arbitration provision in the collective bargaining agreement was not susceptible to an interpretation excluding the grievances at issue)
*Cases marked with an asterisk are cases the 10th Circuit does not consider binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. They may be cited, however, for persuasive value under Fed.R.App.P. 32.1 and 10th Cir.R. 32.1.