Peoria County Belwood Nursing Home v. Industrial Commission
Illinois Supreme Court
505 N.E.2d 1026 (1987)
- Written by Ross Sewell, JD
Facts
Wanda Cagle (plaintiff) worked in the Peoria County Belwood Nursing Home (Belwood) (defendant) laundry room for six years. Cagle’s job required her to carry laundry bags weighing between 25 and 50 pounds and load the laundry into two 200-pound-capacity washing machines six times every day. In October 1976, Cagle consulted Dr. John McClean, a neurologist, for symptoms of pain, numbness, and tingling in her left arm. Cagle continued working in the laundry room until August 1977, when Cagle had surgery for carpal tunnel syndrome. Cagle filed a claim for compensation under the Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act), alleging she developed carpal tunnel syndrome due to the repetitive stress of working in the laundry room. Cagle testified she told McLean that because of her pain she had extreme difficulty gripping the washing-machine doors. Cagle’s medical testimony was uncontroverted. The arbitrator found that Cagle presented sufficient medical evidence to establish her injury was work related and awarded her benefits for temporary total disability and for 25 percent permanent total disability. The Industrial Commission affirmed Cagle’s award, and the circuit court confirmed the Industrial Commission’s decision. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment. Belwood appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Clark, C.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.