Smith’s Food and Drug, Inc. v. Labor Commission
Utah Court of Appeals
250 P.3d 1008 (2011)
- Written by Whitney Punzone, JD
Facts
In 1993 Gina Christensen (plaintiff) started working for Smith’s Food and Drug, Inc. (Smith) (defendant) as a cheese cook. Christensen’s work involved 12-hour shifts of lifting, pushing, and pulling large equipment. In July 2001, Christensen started to experience shoulder pain, which increased during her work. In November 2001, Christensen felt soreness in her shoulder that was different from the pain she felt in July and had constant wrist and elbow pain and numbness in two fingers. Christensen saw her doctor, who determined that she had suffered an acute event due to a work-related injury. A second doctor performed an evaluation pursuant to Smith’s request and found no causal relationship between Christensen’s medical condition and her work, stating that Christensen had a preexisting condition. In August 2002, Christensen filed for workers’-compensation benefits. As a result of the different opinions of the two doctors, a medical panel was appointed by the Utah Labor Commission (the commission). The medical panel found in Christensen’s favor, and the commission granted workers’-compensation benefits. Smith filed a petition for review challenging the award, arguing that Christensen was not injured by accident and was therefore not entitled to benefits.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Voros, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 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.