Court of Appeals Decides "Arising Out Of" Case Favorably to Employee
In AARP v. Whitacre, No. 12-1519 (Iowa App. May 15, 2013), claimant was a 79 year old part time janitor for AARP. While on a coffee break one day, claimant began to choke, stood up to get a drink of water, stumbled and fell, causing injuries to his head and face. The deputy and commissioner found that this injury arose out of his employment and awarded benefits. On judicial review, the district court reversed.
In addressing the question, the court noted that the earlier decision in Lakeside Casino v. Blue, 743 N.W.2d 169 (Iowa 2007) had indicated that the arising out of test involved proof that a causal connection existed between the conditions of the employment and the injury. The COA also noted that earlier decisions of the Supreme Court were to the effect that risks that were personal to the employee were not compensable, but further noted that Lakeside Casino and other cases had indicated that the work risk need be no greater than risks outside the workplace.
The parties agreed that the fall was "idiopathic," but disagreed as to whether the conditions at work aggravated the injury. The agency had concluded that the design and construction of the office in which claimant was working had contributed to the effects of the injury. The office was a small office with hard concrete walls and a concrete floor. The deputy concluded that because claimant hit his head on the concrete wall, this aggravated the effects of the injury.
The court noted that the earlier decision in Koehler v. Wills,608 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2000), did not require the existence of a dangerous condition at the workplace (Koehler involved a fall from a ladder onto a concrete floor). The COA specifically rejected language found in Miedema v. Dial Corp., 551 N.W.2d 309, 311 (Iowa 1996), which indicated that there needed to be an increased risk from the work situation, finding that this was "an inadvertent throw-back to the increased-risk doctrine." The court found that the work related factor did not need to be greater than the risk in the non-work environment, but it had to be real, and not fictitious.
On the facts of the case, the court found that hitting a desk and then a concrete wall in a small office constituted a real risk that aggravated the effects of the injury. The decision of the district court was reversed and the decision of the agency reinstated.
Although Whitacre does not represent a huge change in the law concerning injuries that arise out of employment, it is an important case in that it stresses the fact that there need be no increased work from the employment situation in order for a claim to be deemed compensable. All that is necessary is that the work setting aggravate the effects of the injury.
In addressing the question, the court noted that the earlier decision in Lakeside Casino v. Blue, 743 N.W.2d 169 (Iowa 2007) had indicated that the arising out of test involved proof that a causal connection existed between the conditions of the employment and the injury. The COA also noted that earlier decisions of the Supreme Court were to the effect that risks that were personal to the employee were not compensable, but further noted that Lakeside Casino and other cases had indicated that the work risk need be no greater than risks outside the workplace.
The parties agreed that the fall was "idiopathic," but disagreed as to whether the conditions at work aggravated the injury. The agency had concluded that the design and construction of the office in which claimant was working had contributed to the effects of the injury. The office was a small office with hard concrete walls and a concrete floor. The deputy concluded that because claimant hit his head on the concrete wall, this aggravated the effects of the injury.
The court noted that the earlier decision in Koehler v. Wills,608 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2000), did not require the existence of a dangerous condition at the workplace (Koehler involved a fall from a ladder onto a concrete floor). The COA specifically rejected language found in Miedema v. Dial Corp., 551 N.W.2d 309, 311 (Iowa 1996), which indicated that there needed to be an increased risk from the work situation, finding that this was "an inadvertent throw-back to the increased-risk doctrine." The court found that the work related factor did not need to be greater than the risk in the non-work environment, but it had to be real, and not fictitious.
On the facts of the case, the court found that hitting a desk and then a concrete wall in a small office constituted a real risk that aggravated the effects of the injury. The decision of the district court was reversed and the decision of the agency reinstated.
Although Whitacre does not represent a huge change in the law concerning injuries that arise out of employment, it is an important case in that it stresses the fact that there need be no increased work from the employment situation in order for a claim to be deemed compensable. All that is necessary is that the work setting aggravate the effects of the injury.
Comments
Post a Comment