International Harvester Co. v. Industrial Commission

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• observing that the “but for” rationale has been extended to cases where the event immediately causing the second injury was not itself caused by the first injury, yet but for the first injury, the second event would not have been injurious
• affirming Commission’s resolution of conflicting medical evidence in favor of the claimant regarding whether the claimant had fully recovered from the effects of his work-related brain injury when he was struck in the eye by his wife, causing an increase in his neurosis
• where the work injury itself causes a subsequent injury, the chain of causation is not broken
• claimant's continuing traumatic neurosis resulting from a work-related head injury was a causative 15 factor in the total and permanent disability that occurred four years later when his wife struck him in the head
• in the context of an independent intervening cause, “cases have applied a ‘but for’ test, basing compensability for an ultimate injury or disability upon a finding that it was caused by an event which would not have occurred had it not been for the original injury” (emphasis omitted)
• rejecting apportionment of compensation involving multiple accidents

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).