Smith's Food & Drug, Inc. v. Labor Comm'n - 2011 UT App 67, 250 P.3d 1008

Rule:

An accident is not necessarily restricted to some single incident which happened suddenly at one particular time and does not preclude the possibility that due to exertion, stress or other repetitive cause, a climax might be reached in such manner as to properly fall within the definition of an accident.

Facts:

In 1993, Claimant Gina Christensen began working for Smith's Food & Drug, Inc. (Employer) in its dairy department as a cheese cook. Claimant's job entailed working twelve-hour shifts converting milk to cheese curds in large vats. That process required Claimant, usually with the aid of a co-worker, to repeatedly lift, attach, push, pull, and insert large industrial equipment, some weighing as much as seventy pounds. After experiencing constant wrist, elbow, and shoulder pain, claimant sought medical treatment. A cervical spine X-ray and MRI revealed spondylosis consistent with degenerative disc disease, disc herniations, and disc abnormality. Her doctor recommended surgery. A second doctor performed a medical evaluation at Employer's request. He found no medical causal relationship between Claimant's work and the condition of her discs. Subsequently, Claimant filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits pursuant to Utah Code section 34A-2-401(1) of the Utah Workers' Compensation Act. The appointed Medical Panel agreed with the Claimant’s doctor. Thereafter, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled that the Claimant had suffered an injury caused by accident arising out of and in the course of her employment, and awarded her workers’ compensation benefits. The Employer appealed the decision to the Utah Labor Commission, which adopted the ALJ's findings of fact and affirmed the ALJ's ruling. The Employer sought review of the decision. 

Issue:

Did the Utah Labor Commission err in determining that the Claimant was injured by accident, and in awarding her workers' compensation benefits under the Utah Workers' Compensation Act? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The Court held that pursuant to the Utah Code Ann. § 34A-2-401(1), respondent Utah Labor Commission did not err in determining that respondent worker's cumulative trauma claim should be classified as an industrial accident where an accident was not necessarily restricted to some single incident which happened suddenly at one particular time and did not preclude the possibility that a climax might be reached in such manner as to properly fall within the definition of an accident. The worker's injury was caused by accident, a finding that did not exceed the bounds of reasonableness.