Matthews v. R.T. Allen & Sons, Inc.
Maine Supreme Court
266 A.2d 240 (1970)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
Arthur Matthews (plaintiff) was a woodworker employed by R.T. Allen & Sons, Inc. (Allen) (defendant) to load heavy sticks of pulpwood onto Allen’s trucks. Loading the wood required Matthews to bend and straighten his back repeatedly. On November 13, 1967, Matthews felt pain in his back after loading wood for approximately three hours. Matthews’s back pain intensified during his lunch break, but he loaded more wood after lunch for roughly another hour before the pain became so great that he could not continue working. Matthews’s back pain continued to increase, and he was admitted to the hospital and eventually underwent surgery to remove a herniated disc. Matthews’s doctors did not opine about what initially caused Matthews’s back injury. However, Matthews’s orthopedic surgeon stated that it was unfortunate that Matthews had continued to work after his pain developed. Matthews sought workers’-compensation benefits, but an industrial-accident commissioner denied Matthews’s claim. The commissioner found that Matthews’s herniated disc had developed prior to November 13, 1967, and that Matthews had not experienced a singular disabling incident on that day. The commissioner thus concluded that Matthews had not suffered a personal injury by accident that arose out of and in the course of his employment, as required to recover benefits under Maine’s workers’-compensation statute. The Maine Supreme Court reviewed the commissioner’s decision.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Weatherbee, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 790,000 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.