Miedema v. Dial Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that claimant’s back injury arose in the course of employment, but it did not arise out of his employment
• holding that claimant's back injury arose in the course of employment, but it did not arise out of his employment
• concluding that despite the fact that the employee’s back strain occurred in the course of employment, the fact that the employee strained his back while using the restroom was not a hazard associated with his employment and thus did not arise out of his employment
• holding injury occurred in the course of employment when employee was on his employer’s premises during normal working hours, and was about to perform his required duties when he unexpectedly strained his back
• affirming denial of workers’ compensation benefits to an employee who injured his back when flushing a toilet at work
• requiring a \causal connection ... between the conditions of his employment and the injury\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).