Court Opinion

ID: 9538464
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:36:49.686405+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:53.914444
License: Public Domain

HALL, Justice:
Review of an order of the Industrial Commission awarding workmen’s compensation to one Ivan Thurman for injuries he allegedly sustained while working for Plaintiff. We reverse.
Thurman is employed by Plaintiff as a janitor of a meetinghouse. On March 31, 1976, he was following his typical routine of setting up chairs and tables in preparation for a weekly scheduled meeting. He engaged in only his usual activities and had no complaint of pain while working. When he became somewhat tired, he sat down and rested for about five minutes. Upon hearing the telephone ring, he stood up suddenly and for the first time, felt a sharp pain in his lower back. The pain caused him to sit down again and rest. After resting, Thurman was able to continue work but not without pain. He reported the problem to his supervisor the next day and subsequently sought medical assistance. It was determined that he had suffered a herniated disc which ultimately required an operation. The administrative law judge ruled that a compensable “accident” had occurred while Thurman was “working” in plaintiff’s meetinghouse and the Industrial Commission gave an award. Subsequently a petition for writ of review was filed with this Court pursuant to U.C.A., 1953, 35-1-83.
The sole question we are called upon to answer is whether there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the finding that Thurman sustained an accidental injury on the job.1 The only facts relating to the claimed accident were presented by the testimony of Thurman, and there is nothing contained therein that warrants a conclusion that an accident occurred. There is nothing in his testimony that shows anything unusual about his activities that shows any unusual exertion or strain, or that shows any contact with objects or a fall. There was simply nothing different about his activities on the day in question than on any other such working day.
The following excerpts from Thurman’s testimony are demonstrative of the fact that no accident occurred:
Q. When you were setting up those tables on that, I believe you said a Wednesday morning, was this a routine that you normally engage in every Wednesday?
A. Yes.
Q. You talked about the pattern of activity that you’d had on Wednesdays over the many years that you’ve been a jani*330tor. My question is, prior to the time you sat down on the chair when you felt tired, was there anything in your activities, as far as what you had to do that morning, in the way of setting up chairs or tables or doing any of your janitorial activity, that was in any way unusual or out of the ordinary from your normal activity for that particular day?
A. No.
To be considered along with the testimony of Thurman is the opinion of the medical panel which reads in pertinent part as follows:
It is the opinion of the Medical Panel that at that time when Mr. Thurman arose from his chair, degenerated disc material, as we all have, protruded into or partway through the surrounding ligament, the anulus fibrosus, and that by the time he developed his leg pain, the disc material had progressed far enough through the anulus fibrosus surrounding the nucleus pulposis that it was then pressing on the nerve root and in this way and to this degree there is a causal relationship between the claimant’s problems and complaints and the activity at that time. [Emphasis added.]
This Court has previously defined the term “accident” arising out of or in the course of employment as that which “connotes an unanticipated, unintended occurrence different from what would normally be expected to occur in the usual courts of events.”2 The facts of this case in no way fit that definition. Simply because the first onset of pain occurred during working hours, it does not follow that there is a compensable “injury.”
The case of Redman Warehousing Corp. v. Industrial Commission 3 is closely in point on the law and on the facts and is disposi-tive here. In that case a truck driver experienced back pain during one of his trips. He was subsequently hospitalized for a herniated disc. A medical panel found that his driving precipitated the problem and could have aggravated a pre-existing condition since there was some evidence of disc degeneration. He had been performing exactly the same kind of work over an 11-year period and there was nothing different about this particular trip from others. This Court then stated:
There is nothing in this record that shows any unusual event, or ‘accident’ if you please, justifying compensability within the nature, intent or spirit of the workmen’s compensation act. To conclude otherwise, would insure every truck driver, every railroad engineer, every airline pilot and a lot of others, against a physiological malfunction or physical collapse of any of hundreds of human organs, completely unproven as to cause, but compensable only by virtue of the happenstance that the malfunction, collapse or injury occurred while the employee was on the job and not home or elsewhere. [Emphasis added.]
The evidence does not support the Industrial Commission’s conclusion that an “accident” had arisen out of or in the course of Thurman’s employment. The order of the Commission is therefore reversed and remanded with instruction to dismiss Thurman’s claim.
ELLETT, C. J., and CROCKETT, J., concur.

. As a prerequisite to obtaining an award of compensation under Utah’s Workmen’s Compensation Act, a claimant must establish that he was injured “by accident arising out of or in the course of his employment.” U.C.A., 1953, 35-1 — 45.

. Carling v. Industrial Comm., 16 Utah 2d 260, 399 P.2d 202 (1965); see also, Graybar Electric Co. v. Ind. Comm., 73 Utah 568, 276 P. 161 (1929).

. 22 Utah 2d 398, 454 P.2d 283 (1969).