29 C.F.R. § 785.43
Medical attention
Time spent by an employee in waiting for and receiving medical attention on the premises or at the direction of the employer during the employee's normal working hours on days when he is working constitutes hours worked.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2005–2022 · leading case: Kari Sehie v. City of Aurora, 432 F.3d 749 (7th Cir. 2005).
Kari Sehie v. City of Aurora, 432 F.3d 749 (7th Cir. 2005). “By no means does our ruling mean that every time an employer gets help for its employees, the employee must be compensated for hours worked.”
Rafael Espinoza v. Atlas R.R. Constr. LL, 657 F. App'x 101 (3rd Cir. 2016). “25 29 C.F.R. § 785.43 (emphasis added). 11 to “scheduled working hours” would exacerbate the disparity in bargaining power between employer and employee, as employers exercise sole control over employees’ schedules.”
Copeland v. ABB, Inc., 521 F.3d 1010 (8th Cir. 2008). “” 29 C.F.R. § 785.43 (2007) (emphasis added).”
Germundson v. Armour-Eckrich Meats, L.L.C., 276 F. Supp. 3d 911 (N.D. Iowa 2017). “” 29 C.F.R. § 785.43 ; see also Copeland v.”
Sehie, Kari v. City of Aurora (7th Cir. 2005). “By no means does our ruling mean that every time an employer gets help for its employees, the employee must be compensated for hours worked.”
Howard v. Post Foods, LLC (W.D. Mich. 2022). “Plaintiffs also cite 29 C.F.R. § 785.43 , but that provision refers to “[t]ime spent by an employee in waiting for and receiving medical attention on the premises or at the direction of the employer during the employee’s normal working hours on days when he is working[.”
Cynthia Howser v. ABB (8th Cir. 2008). “” 29 C.F.R. § 785.43 (2007) (emphasis added).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.