Skip to main content

Pick 'n Save Roundy's v. Labor & Industry Review Commission

WISCTAPPAugust 25, 2010No. No. 2009AP2594Cited 8 times
Plaintiff WinPick 'n Save Roundy's$15,553.22 awarded
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Anderson, Brown, Neubauer
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wrongful Termination

Outcome

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the Labor and Industry Review Commission's decision awarding workers' compensation benefits to Jill Lucchesi for carpal tunnel injuries sustained while performing cake decorating duties, despite her documented medical restrictions, finding the injuries were not intentionally self-inflicted.

What This Ruling Means

**Pick 'n Save Worker Wins Compensation for Carpal Tunnel Injury** This case involved Jill Lucchesi, a Pick 'n Save employee who developed carpal tunnel syndrome while working as a cake decorator. Despite having documented medical restrictions that should have limited her duties, Lucchesi continued performing repetitive cake decorating work that worsened her condition. When she sought workers' compensation benefits for her injury, Pick 'n Save fought the claim, arguing that her carpal tunnel was intentionally self-inflicted. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals ruled in Lucchesi's favor, upholding a decision that awarded her $15,553.22 in workers' compensation benefits. The court found that her carpal tunnel injuries were legitimate work-related injuries, not something she intentionally caused herself. The court determined that performing repetitive motions required by her job duties caused the condition, even though she had pre-existing medical restrictions. This ruling matters for workers because it establishes that employees can still receive workers' compensation even when they have medical restrictions, as long as their injuries result from required job duties rather than intentional self-harm. Workers don't lose their right to compensation simply because they have pre-existing conditions or documented limitations.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.