ILLINOIS SECURITY GUARD WHO CAN'T EXPLAIN FALL AT WORK LOSES WORKERS COMP CLAIM

The Illinois Appellate Court[4th Dist] recently issued an opinion clarifying when a worker can recover for an unexplained fall at work. In Baldwin v. The Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, the facts are pretty straightforward. Cathy Baldwin worked as a security guard. On October 8, 2006 she was working inside guard duty, which called for her to walk the area. She was descending a metal staircase when she slipped and fell. There was no defect on the stair. Ms. Baldwin could not identify what caused her to fall, but did testify that shortly before the fall she had walked through a freezer. She opined that moisture on her shoes may have caused her to fall. Ms. Baldwin later filed a Workers’ Compensation claim for the injuries she sustained in the fall. After a hearing, an arbitrator ruled that Baldwin had failed to prove she sustained injuries arising out of, and in the course of her employment. Her claim was denied.
Baldwin sought review of the Abitrator’s ruling before the Commission, but the arbitrator’s ruling was upheld. She then sought judicial review of the ruling.
The Appellate Court explained that in order for an injury caused by an unexplained fall at work to qualify as a Workers’ Comp claim, the employee must provide some evidence that supports a reasonable inference that the fall was due to a risk related to the employment. If the injury comes about because of a condition to which the general public is equally exposed, the injury does NOT arise out of employment. The Court went on to note that Ms. Baldwin did not present any evidence explaining what caused her to fall. The suggestion that moisture on her shoes from the freezer caused the fall, in the Court’s opinion, was simply conjecture. The Appellate Court ruled that Ms. Baldwin failed to prove that her injury arose out of her job and upheld the decision of the arbitrator.

Categories: CASES IN THE NEWS