Holloway v. Industrial Commission

Utah Supreme Court

Holloway v. Industrial Commission

729 P.2d 31, 47 Utah Adv. Rep. 15, 1986 Utah LEXIS 924

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 21, 1986

DocketNo. 20621

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 729 P.2d 31 (Holloway v. Industrial Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Holloway v. Industrial Commission, 729 P.2d 31, 47 Utah Adv. Rep. 15, 1986 Utah LEXIS 924 (Utah 1986).

Pincite

Opinions

STEWART, Justice:

Plaintiff Richard E. Holloway is a self-employed truck driver. On July 11, 1984, after driving for about six hours, he stopped at a rest stop. He claims that he slipped while walking across an oil spill on his way to the restroom and that the slip caused him to jerk to regain his balance. After returning from the restroom, Holloway bent over to inspect one of his truck tires. While crouching, he experienced an immediate sharp pain in his back which made him fall to the ground, landing on his arms and jaw. His wife, also a truck driver, drove for the rest of the trip. Two days after the incident Holloway consulted a chiropractor in Georgia. He consulted another chiropractor on returning to Salt Lake City. The slip on the oil spill was not mentioned in the reports of the chiropractors who examined Holloway, in the First Report of Injury, or in the claimant’s report of how the injury occurred.

The Commission denied review of the administrative law judge’s order. The judge ruled that the plaintiff’s injury was not the result of an “accident” as that term [32]*32is used under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

This case is controlled by Allen v. Industrial Commission, 729 P.2d 15 (Utah 1986), which establishes new standards for determining whether an “accident” occurred in internal breakdown cases, such as the instant case. We therefore reverse and remand to the Commission for reconsideration in light of Allen.

HALL, C.J., and DURHAM, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

STEWART, Justice:

Plaintiff Richard E. Holloway is a self-employed truck driver. On July 11, 1984, after driving for about six hours, he stopped at a rest stop. He claims that he slipped while walking across an oil spill on his way to the restroom and that the slip caused him to jerk to regain his balance. After returning from the restroom, Holloway bent over to inspect one of his truck tires. While crouching, he experienced an immediate sharp pain in his back which made him fall to the ground, landing on his arms and jaw. His wife, also a truck driver, drove for the rest of the trip. Two days after the incident Holloway consulted a chiropractor in Georgia. He consulted another chiropractor on returning to Salt Lake City. The slip on the oil spill was not mentioned in the reports of the chiropractors who examined Holloway, in the First Report of Injury, or in the claimant’s report of how the injury occurred.

The Commission denied review of the administrative law judge’s order. The judge ruled that the plaintiff’s injury was not the result of an “accident” as that term [32]*32is used under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

This case is controlled by Allen v. Industrial Commission, 729 P.2d 15 (Utah 1986), which establishes new standards for determining whether an “accident” occurred in internal breakdown cases, such as the instant case. We therefore reverse and remand to the Commission for reconsideration in light of Allen.

HALL, C.J., and DURHAM, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

729 P.2d 31, 47 Utah Adv. Rep. 15, 1986 Utah LEXIS 924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holloway-v-industrial-commission-utah-1986.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack