Peoria County Belwood Nursing Home v. The Industrial Commission
Illinois Court of Appeals
487 N.E.2d 356 (1985)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
Wanda Cagle (plaintiff) worked in the laundry room at Peoria County Belwood Nursing Home (Belwood) (defendant). For six years, Cagle’s job duties included carrying 25-to-50-pound laundry bags, sorting and loading laundry into large washing machines, and operating the washing machines. While working in the laundry room, Cagle began noticing pain, numbness, and tingling in her left wrist to such a degree that as of October 4, 1976, she could no longer grip the washing-machine doors during her shift. On October 5, 1976, Cagle consulted a neurologist, who connected Cagle’s symptoms to her employment. Cagle subsequently underwent surgery for carpal-tunnel syndrome. In August of 1979, Cagle sought workers’-compensation benefits from Belwood, alleging that she had developed carpal-tunnel syndrome in the course of her job in the laundry room. An arbitrator awarded Cagle benefits after finding that Cagle had suffered an accidental injury on October 4, 1976, due to repeated trauma from operating the washing machines. The Industrial Commission (plaintiff) affirmed the award, and a state circuit court affirmed the commission’s decision. Belwood appealed to the Illinois Court of Appeals, arguing that Cagle’s injury was not a compensable accidental injury under Illinois’s workers’-compensation statute because the injury was not traceable to a specific incident.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Barry, J.)
Dissent (Webber, 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.
