Had to post this because I cant resist highlighting the absurdity of defense arguments (which are taught in law school as opposed to what the media suggests) from a Connecticut federal court where a plaintiff had filed her Americans with Disabilities Act case and the Defendant wanted the case dismissed: The employer argued that there was no connection between these three accidents because, it claimed, the first two (car accidents) resulted in back and neck injuries, but the third was different. The court explains: The Defendant apparently believes this to be the case because it is defining cervical strain as an injury to a womans cervix. While the term cervical is defined as of or relating to a neck or cervix, (Merriam-Webster ...) the Court notes for purposes of clarity that a cervical strain more commonly refers to an injury of the cervical spine and not an injury to a womans reproductive anatomy. Now that I think about it my cervix hurts from even thinking about this! (I mean my neck). LOL.
Posted on: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 14:42:16 +0000