Court Opinion

ID: 9852530
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:32:25.575333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:29.196609
License: Public Domain

Caporale, J.,
concurring.
I agree with the result in this case, as the record, weak as it is, supports the finding of a causal relationship between the snapping in plaintiff’s hand and the carpal tunnel and pronator teres syndromes. I write separately only to express the view that this case is distinguishable from Sandel v. Packaging Co. of America, 211 Neb. 149, 317 N.W.2d 910 (1982). Here, the snapping in plaintiff’s hand satisfies the definition of accident as defined in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-151(2) (Reissue 1984). That *843occurrence constitutes an “unexpected or unforeseen injury happening suddenly and violently,” which produced at the time of its happening “objective symptoms of an injury.” In Sandel there was no such trauma. I therefore would have chosen not to use Sandel as support for the result reached in the present case. The same can generally be said about McLaughlin v. Self-Insurance Servs., 219 Neb. 260, 361 N.W.2d 585 (1985).