Washington Law Review
Abstract
The Washington Supreme Court recently refused to apply the "unusual strain" test used in heart attack cases to back injury litigation. Claimant, a clerk-typist, suffered a herniated intervertebral disc when she twisted around to answer a telephone which rang as she was bending over in the opposite direction. Claimant's employer contended that her injury did not constitute a "sudden and tangible happening of a traumatic nature" within the statutory definition of "injury" in the Industrial Insurance Act. A compensation award by the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals was upheld by the trial court. On appeal, held: Impairment of claimant's skeletal mechanism, sustained in a normal course of employment act without any unusual strain or exertion, is an "injury" within the scope of the Industrial Insurance Act. Boeing Co. v. Fine, 65 Wash. Dec.2d 149, 396 P.2d 145 (1964).
First Page
389
Recommended Citation
anon,
Washington Case Law,
Workmen's Compensation—Back Injuries—Absence of Unusual Strain or Exertion,
40 Wash. L. Rev.
389
(1965).
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol40/iss2/22