Court Opinion

ID: 9657153
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:16:11.192645+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:41.553598
License: Public Domain

Caporale, J.,
dissenting in part.
While I agree with the majority’s analysis and resolution of the wage issue, I must nonetheless dissent.
It seems to me that the fear expressed in my dissent in Sandel v. Packaging Co. of America, 211 Neb. 149, 317 N.W.2d 910 (1982), has come to pass by the majority’s resolution of this case. Mere hard work has become an “accident. . . arising out of and in the course of... employment” within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-101 (Reissue 1984). According to the majority, there was an accident because plaintiff used her knees in doing her work, and the accident arose out of the employment because she felt pain while she was at work. Such a thought process fleeces of any meaning the word “accident” and the phrase “arising out of.”
For the reasons expressed in Sandel v. Packaging Co. of America, supra, I would find the plaintiff failed to sustain the burden of proving she suffered an injury resulting from an accident arising out of and in the course of her employment. I thus would reverse the judgment of the compensation court and *589direct dismissal of the action.
Boslaugh and Hastings, JJ., join in this dissent.