Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Allen v. Industrial Commission

Utah Supreme Court

Decided November 14, 1986No. 20026Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

HALL, Chief Justice:

(concurring and dissenting).

I concur in remanding this case to the Commission for the purpose of determining whether the work incident aggravated a preexisting condition such as would warrant an award of compensation.1 However, I do not join the Court in adopting an “unexpected result” standard to be applied in determining the existence of a compensa-ble accident.

I do not believe that this Court has “misconstrued the historical and logical” definition of “by accident” in the bulk of its recent cases concerning the issue at bar. The majority’s reliance upon Purity Biscuit…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Kaiser Steel Corp. v. MonfrediUtah Supreme Court · 1981
  2. Purity Biscuit Co. v. Industrial CommissionUtah Supreme Court · 1949
  3. Carling v. Industrial Commission of UtahUtah Supreme Court · 1965
  4. Schmidt v. Industrial Commission of UtahUtah Supreme Court · 1980
  5. Powers v. Industrial Commission of UtahUtah Supreme Court · 1967

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API