Workers' Compensation: H. Edwin Detlie: Iowa Woman Falls at Work, Ruled Not Work Injury

Larson's Case Law Developments

5/24/2008 6:30:35 PM EST

Iowa Woman Falls at Work, Ruled Not Work Injury

The Iowa Court of Appeals refused to find a woman's back injury was work-related, although she fell at work. In Ottumwa Regional Health Center v. Mitchell, 752 N.W.2d 35, filed in April of 2008, the Iowa Court of Appeals decided that since Iowa has not adopted the "positional risk" doctrine, the woman's fall at work while performing her hospital duties was not work-related.

The positional risk doctrine. Under the positional risk doctrine, if a worker is carrying out a duty and is injured, the injury is considered a work injury. Iowa has not adopted that doctrine. The Court cited 1 Arthur Larson & Lex K. Larson, Larson's Workers' Compensation Law § 3.05, at 3-6 (2007).

The actual risk doctrine. If an Iowa worker is injured while carrying out his or her duties, the injury is considered work-related "as long as the employment subjected [the] claimant to the actual risk that caused the injury." The Court cited 1 Arthur Larson & Lex K. Larson, Larson's Workers' Compensation Law § 3.04, at 3-5 (2007).

In this case, Cathy Mitchell did not know what caused her to fall in the hospital room, and she did not note any water on the floor. Although the Workers' Compensation Commissioner found the injury compensable, the Iowa District Court and Iowa Court of Appeals found that the injury was not a work injury. While the Court correctly points out that workers' compensation is not a general health insurance policy, and is not meant to cover incidents that could happen while not at work, this decision seems to be hair-splitting with no intelligible standard, that will encourage pointless litigation and appeals.

To find out more about this author, readers are invited to visit Ed Detlie's lawfirm website at

http://www.detlielawfirm.com.

Create an account or login to post comments.

Comments
Last Post: 5/25/2008 1:52:32 PM	Subject: Iowa Woman Falls at Work, Ruled Not Work Injury Date Posted: 5/25/2008 1:52:32 PM
Last Post: 5/25/2008 1:52:32 PM	This case result seems idiotic to me. Hospital floors are notoriously slippery. They always have someone mopping the floors. There are always spills of fluids, blood, etc. There's no evidence here that claimant was goofing around or had a dizzy spell, correct? Create an account or login to post comments.
Ed Detlie 5/27/2008 12:07:53 PM subject: response to You are correct, according to my reading of the Iowa Court of Appeals decision. The denial by the Court hinged on the lack of any explanation for the fall. The injured worker did not notice any wet feeling on the floor after she fell, so they concluded that the fall was not work-related. The decision seems illogical, and a violation of the very basic premise of workers'' compensation protection, that it was intended to be a no-fault statute. It also gives employers and insurance carriers a potential argument to deny almost every claim. This decision seems to suggest that the worker must conduct his or her own investigation immediately after the accident. That begs the question: if someone falls at work and is rendered unconscious, is he or she out of luck in establishing a work-related claim? Thomas A.Robinson 5/28/2008 7:10:13 AM subject: response to Ed Detlie I haven't yet read the case, although I intend to do so. Some jurisdictions do award compensation in so-called "unexplained fall" cases. See Larson, Section 7.04. One problem with the doctrine is that it can be virtually indistinguishable from the positional risk doctrine. I agreed that the courts often seem to be splitting hairs on these sorts of decisions. On the other hand, except in a few states where there is what amounts to a presumption of compensability, most jurisdictions require a claimant to come forward with some affirmative measure of evidence that the injury arises out of and is in the course of the employment. Where no evidence is proffered as to a slick floor or other impediment, a claimant can be left with the "scales" not tipped in her direction. Ed Detlie 5/29/2008 5:19:46 PM subject: response to Thomas A.Robinson In this case, the employee was clearly on the job, and fell while working. As the previous poster points out, hospitals are notorious for having slick floors, often gloss paint on concrete or an over-waxed linoleum. On top of that, hospitals often seem to have liquid spills, usually from meals or urine from leaky catheters. One of the largest single categories of hospital and nursing home injuries I have seen have been falls on slippery floors -- second perhaps to moving patients. In this case, the Deputy Workers' Compensation Commissioner, acting as ALJ, and the Commissioner found that the injury arose out of and in the course of the employment. I believe that the frequency of spills and slick floors in hospitals and nursing homes, and the lack of any other explanation, gave rise to a presumption in the agency that the floor was slick, almost a res ipsa loquitur situation. Ed Detlie 5/30/2008 7:52:13 PM subject: response to Thomas A.Robinson The Mitchell case seems a different outcome than a recent Iowa Supreme Court opinion in Lakeside Casino v. Blue, 743 N.W.2d 169; 2007 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 130 (Iowa 2007). Diana Blue fell on steps at her workplace. As in Mitchell, the Commissioner found that the injury arose out of and in the course of her employment. In Blue, however, the Court found that the claimant''s fall on the stairs was a work injury, without any special circumstances. The Court noted, "with limited exceptions, we have abandoned any requirement that the employment subject the employee to a risk or hazard that is greater than that faced by the general public." Lakeside Casino v. Blue, 743 N.W.2d 174-175. That makes the Mitchell decision by the Iowa Court of Appeals, requiring proof of water or some other special risk, all the more puzzling. Larson argues in his treatise that an unexplained fall should be compensated under the positional-risk rule. (1 Arthur Larson & Lex K. Larson, Larson''s Workers'' Compensation Law) Section 7.04(1)(a), at 7-28 to 7-29. We disagree that Blue''s stumble is unexplained. . . . It was not disputed that these stairs were a condition existing in her workplace. Moreover, it is a matter of common knowledge that stairs pose an actual risk of stumbling or falling when traversing them, similar to the risk posed by going up and down ladders. Although Blue did not stumble due to any particular defect in or condition of the stairs, it is not necessary under Iowa case law that the stairs in Blue''s workplace be more dangerous than a typical set of steps. In addition, it matters not that she stumbled through her own inattention. Blue''s misstep was causally related to the fact that she was walking on stairs, and therefore, the Commissioner rationally concluded her injury arose out of her employment. Lakeside Casino v. Blue, 743 N.W.2d at 747, 2007 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 130. The Commissioner sought to adopt the positional-risk doctrine, and while the Court refused, they agreed that climbing stairs poses an actual risk, even though the risk is no different than in ordinary stairs. They specifically did not require that she show any special condition that exposed her to special risk on those particular stairs. The Mitchell case seems to take the opposite approach, requiring some special risk. The Lakeside Casino principle would seem to apply in Mitchell v. Ottumwa Regional Health Center as well, and would seem to direct a finding in favor of the claimant. Ed Detlie 2/6/2009 5:45:57 PM subject: response to Ed Detlie See a more recent case of the Iowa Court of Appeals, Benco v. Albertsen, with the same facts as this case, and an opposite result. Go to http://tinyurl.com/dm4mov

	Let your voice be heard by joining the community today. Sign up.