Arizona Employee’s Idiopathic Fall is Not Compensable

In an unpublished decision, an Arizona appellate court affirmed a determination by the state’s Industrial Commission that found an employee’s workers’ compensation claim was not compensable because the employee’s injuries did not arise from the employment [Turner v. Industrial Comm’n of Ariz., 2021 Ariz. App. Unpub. LEXIS 517 (May 6, 2021)]. Citing prior precedent and quoting liberally from Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 9.01 et seq., the court stressed that the Commission correctly concluded that the employee’s risk of tripping himself as he opened the break room’s refrigerator door had not been increased by conditions of the employment. Rather, the fall was the result of the employee’s idiopathic condition—the employee had previously injured his left knee and, because of that injury, suffered from an altered gait.

Background

The employee worked in a call center, having been placed there by a staffing company. The call center had a break room that employees used to store food, eat lunch, and lounge in during work breaks. One night, as the employee attempted to open a refrigerator door, he fell onto his left side. He suffered a broken femur that required surgery and implantation of hardware. He filed a workers’ compensation claim, which was denied.

The employee challenged the denial, testifying that he had fallen because the refrigerator had moved toward him and knocked him over as he pulled the door handle. He also claimed the refrigerator door was difficult to open. That testimony was controverted by other employees.

Videotape

A videotape captured the employee’s injury. It showed that as the employee sought to open the door, his left began to cross behind his right foot, accidentally catching on the right heel, causing the employee to lose balance and fall. Medical testimony indicated the employee, who had his knee replaced several times since 2006, was at risk for such a fall due to his age, altered gait, and medical history related to his left knee. The ALJ found that the employee’s fall was not causally related to the employment.

Appellate Court Decision

Initially, the appellate reiterated that in order to recover, the employee was required to show that he had suffered an injury arising out of and in the course of the employment. Here, there was no question that the employee’s fall was accidental. Moreover, the parties agreed that, pursuant to the personal comfort doctrine, the employee was acting in the course of his employment when he sustained his injury. Quoting Larson, § 9.01[4][b], the court observed that in an idiopathic fall case, such as that before the court, it is “reasonable to require a showing of at least some substantial employment contribution to the harm.”

The appellate court found Sacks v. Indus. Comm’n, 13 Ariz. App. 83, 474 P.2d 442 (1970) to be factually similar. In Sacks, a worker was standing up after using a toilet on the employer’s premises when she hurt her back in a manner that later required surgery. There, the court noted that it was not enough for the employee to be injured on the employer’s premises. The court found that there was no evident causal connection between the employment and the injury.

Returning to the facts in the instant case, and again quoting Larson, the appellate court said the ALJ had correctly concluded that the causation element had not been shown and the employee was not entitled to compensation for the injury.