Winn v. Hormel & Co.

560 N.W.2d 143 (1997)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Winn v. Hormel & Co.

Nebraska Supreme Court
560 N.W.2d 143 (1997)

Facts

Larry D. Winn worked for Hormel & Co. (Hormel) (defendant) at a hog-processing plant. At the plant, Hormel maintained a first-aid clinic available only to Hormel employees, which was staffed by a registered nurse, Lucy Klocke. One morning, Larry went to the clinic. Larry told Klocke that he thought he had indigestion and that he was experiencing chest pressure and arm pain. Klocke believed that Larry was experiencing heart problems and offered to have security guards take him to the emergency room. Larry declined, choosing to rest in the clinic for a short time. Five minutes after he left the clinic, Larry collapsed and died. Larry’s widow, Marilyn A. Winn (plaintiff), filed a negligence action against Hormel in state court, but the court held that workers’ compensation was her exclusive remedy. Marilyn appealed and filed a claim for workers’-compensation death benefits. At a hearing, Marilyn presented the testimony of two experts. A nursing expert testified that Klocke’s treatment of Larry violated the nursing standard of care. A cardiology expert testified that Larry was experiencing a myocardial infarction while in the first-aid clinic, and if he had been treated immediately, he would have had an 80 to 90 percent chance of survival. The expert further testified that because Larry was not treated, he experienced a cardiac dysrhythmia, causing his death. Hormel argued that Marilyn’s workers’-compensation claim should be denied because Larry’s myocardial infarction was not caused by any stress or exertion at his job greater than in a nonemployment setting and was not an accident. Marilyn argued that Klocke’s failure to recognize the symptoms of a myocardial infarction was the accident that caused Larry’s death. The compensation court agreed with Hormel and denied compensation. Marilyn appealed, and her appeal was consolidated with her appeal of the dismissal of her negligence claim.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Gerrard, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 816,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 816,000 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership