Gassner v. Raynor Manufacturing Co.
Illinois Appellate Court
948 N.E.2d 315 (2011)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
While working at Raynor Manufacturing Company (RMC) (defendant), Gunther Gassner (plaintiff) fell down the stairs, injuring his back. After having back surgery, Gassner developed a staph infection at the surgical site. Gassner and RMC signed a settlement contract, under which Gassner was to receive a payment in exchange for a general release of all claims against RMC except for claims falling under an open-medical provision. That provision stated that RMC agreed to pay for “medical expenses for treatment to the low back causally related to the alleged injury” for one year. A few months later, the staph infection spread to Gassner’s heart, resulting in significant medical costs. When RMC refused to pay those costs, Gassner sued RMC. RMC moved for summary judgment, arguing that it was not responsible for the costs because the settlement contract required RMC to pay for only medical treatment to the low back in a muscular-skeletal, chiropractic sense and Gassner’s heart infection did not fall into that category. Gassner argued that because the staph infection originated in his low back, RMC was required to pay for treatment for the staph infection, including treatment for the infection’s spread to his heart. The trial court granted summary judgment in RMC’s favor. Gassner appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Jorgensen, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 787,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.
