Illinois Supreme Court Clarifies Rule Regarding Injuries Stemming From Common Bodily Movements

The Supreme Court of Illinois reversed a decision of the Appellate Court, Workers’ Compensation Division, that in turn had affirmed a denial of benefits to a restaurant sous-chef who sustained injuries to his knee when he stood up after knelling in a walk-in cooler where he had been trying to locate a pan of carrots [McAllister v. Ill. Workers’ Comp. Comm’n, 2020 IL 124848, 2020 Ill. LEXIS 561 (Sept. 24, 2020)]. Citing Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the high court said the Commission’s finding that the chef’s injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment was against the manifest weight of the evidence since his particular activity–kneeling on both knees and then standing up–was an act his employer might reasonably expect him to perform incident to his assigned job.

The Court also overruled Adcock v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, noted below, to the extent that it held injuries attributable to common bodily movements or routine everyday activities were not compensable unless a claimant could prove that he or she was exposed to a risk of injury from those common bodily movements or routine everyday activities to a greater extent than the general public. The decision concludes six years of litigation over the knee injury.

Background

On August 7, 2014, the claimant was working at the employer’s restaurant setting up his station for the evening shift when another cook mentioned that he may have misplaced a pan of carrots in the walk-in cooler. Claimant went into the walk-in cooler to locate the pan of carrots, and while kneeling on both knees, he checked the top, middle, and bottom shelves. As the claimant attempted to stand up from his kneeling position, he felt his right knee “pop.” The general manager of the restaurant drove the claimant to a hospital emergency room.

The claimant had previously injured his right knee in a work-related incident, underwent surgery, received workers’ compensation benefits, and returned to the job. Following this later injury, an MRI revealed a retearing of the medial meniscus. Surgery was recommended and subsequently performed on August 15, 2014. Claimant testified that he paid out-of-pocket for his surgery and anesthesia.

Arbitrator’s Decision

The arbitrator found that the claimant’s act of looking for the misplaced pan of carrots in the walk-in cooler was an act the employer reasonably could have expected claimant to perform in order to fulfill his duties as a sous-chef. The arbitrator awarded (TTD) benefits, PPD benefits, and medical expenses. In addition, the arbitrator determined that the employer’s refusal to pay the claimant’s TTD benefits and medical expenses was dilatory, retaliatory, and objectively unreasonable and, as a result, imposed penalties and awarded attorney’s fees.

Commission Reverses

The Commission, with one commissioner dissenting, set aside the arbitrator’s decision, finding that claimant failed to prove that his knee injury arose out of his employment because the claimant was subjected to a neutral risk which had no particular employment or personal characteristics. The Commission found that claimant’s knee injury did not result from an employment-related risk but rather from a neutral risk of standing up from a kneeling position, which had no “peculiar” employment characteristics. Both the circuit court and the Appellate Division affirmed.

Supreme Court: Three Categories of Risk

Citing Larson, § 4.01, et seq., the Supreme Court indicated that there were three categories of risk to which a claimant might be exposed:

1. Those risks distinctly associated with employment;
2. Those risks that were personal to the employee; and
3. Neutral risks, which had no particular employment or personal characteristics.

Citing Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 129 Ill. 2d 52, 541 N.E.2d 665, 133 Ill. Dec. 454 (1989), the Supreme Court indicated a risk was distinctly associated with an employee’s employment if, at the time of the occurrence, the employee was performing:

1. Acts he or she was instructed to perform by the employer,
2. Acts that he or she had a common-law or statutory duty to perform, or
3. Acts that the employee might reasonably be expected to perform incident to his or her assigned duties.

Employment Risk, Not a Neutral One

Disagreeing with the Commission, the Supreme Court found that the claimant’s knee injury arose from an employment risk, not a neutral one, an injury caused by something unrelated to an employee’s employment such as a stray bullet, dog bite, a bombing injury, or a hurricane injury. Because one of the claimant’s duties was to arrange the walk-in cooler, once the claimant learned that a fellow chef had misplaced a pan of carrots in the walk-in cooler, it would be reasonable for the claimant’s employer to expect the claimant to go into the walk-in cooler to look for the missing vegetables because he would be most familiar with where food would be located in the cooler.

Injuries Caused by Common Bodily Movements

As to whether a compensable injury can “arise out of” an employee’s employment when the employee was injured performing job duties that involve common bodily movements or everyday activities, the Supreme Court again turned to Caterpillar Tractor, finding that decision prescribed the proper test. The Court stressed Caterpillar Tractor did not require a claimant to provide additional evidence establishing that he was exposed to the risk of injury, either qualitatively or quantitatively, to a greater degree than the general public, once he had presented proof that he was involved in an employment-related accident. The Court overruled Adcock v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, 2015 IL App (2d) 130884WC, and its progeny, to the extent that those decisions find that injuries attributable to common bodily movements or routine everyday activities, such as bending, twisting, reaching, or standing up from a kneeling position, are not compensable unless a claimant can prove that he or she was exposed to a risk of injury from these common bodily movements or routine everyday activities to a greater extent than the general public.