Lane Co, Inc. v. Saunders
Virginia Supreme Court
326 S.E.2d 702 (1985)
- Written by Whitney Punzone, JD
Facts
Hammie Saunders (plaintiff) was employed by Lane Co., Inc. (defendant) as a band-saw operator. On June 7, 1983, Saunders was assigned to work on a tennon machine, which involved repetitive bending and twisting, unlike his regular work. Saunders’s back became sore. The following day, Saunders advised his supervisor of back pain and was sent to the staff nurse. Saunders could not pinpoint how exactly the injury happened. Saunders was initially treated by a physician for sciatic nerve pain, but the treatment did not work. Saunders then saw a neurosurgeon and was diagnosed with a herniated intervertebral disc, which was removed surgically. Saunders filed a claim for workers’ compensation. Lane Co. defended against the claim, arguing that no industrial accident had occurred. The deputy commissioner found that Saunders had proved an industrial accident and awarded workers’-compensation benefits. The Industrial Commission affirmed the award based on the unusual nature of Saunders’s June 7 work, the contemporaneous onset of pain, and medical opinion on causal relationship. The Industrial Commission found that because Saunders had no known history of back pain, he did not have to identify a specific incident that caused his injury. Lane Co. appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Russell, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
