|
 |
Larson's Case Law Developments 10/26/2009 11:55:51 PM EST Wallyball Injury Found Compensable by Illinois Court Author/Editor The employee worked as a fitness supervisor for a park district that was operating a fitness facility. A coworker asked the employee to participate in a wallyball game (a team sport similar to volleyball, but which is played within the confines of a racquetball court). Although the employee did not want to do so, he agreed after the coworker informed him that other participants were paying customers and without him, they would not have enough people for the game to go forward. About 15 minutes after the game started, the employee injured his right leg and was transported to the hospital to undergo surgery for a fracture. Thereafter, he sought workers compensation benefits. An arbitrator heard evidence and determined that the injury arose out of and in the course of his employment with the employer. The Commission affirmed and the trial court confirmed the Commission's decision. The employer appealed, contending in pertinent part that the injury was not compensable by virtue of section 11 of the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act (820 ILCS 305/11), which precludes an employee from recovering for accidental injuries incurred while participating in "voluntary recreational programs" unless the employee was ordered or assigned by the employer to participate in the activity.
Here's What The Court Decided:
In Elmhurst Park Dist. v. Illinois Workers' Comp. Comm'n, 2009 Ill. App. LEXIS 981 (Oct. 6, 2009), the Appellate Court of Illinois (First Dist., Workers' Comp. Div.) affirmed. The appellate court found that 820 ILCS 305/11 (2002)'s "voluntary recreational programs" exception did not apply to bar the employee's claim because recreation was inherent in his job as a fitness supervisor, and the evidence showed that he did not participate in the game for his own diversion or exercise, but did so in order to accommodate the paying customers of his employer. The court noted that the arbitrator specifically found that the employee's participation in the wallyball game "clearly benefited the respondent's business of operating a health facility and the [employee] reasonably believed the activity was part of his work duties." The employee, therefore, was not engaged in a "voluntary recreational" activity. Moreover, the appellate court rejected the employer's suggestion that the injury was not compensable because the employer had a policy prohibiting employees from playing league sports while they were on duty. If the policy existed, the evidence presented at the arbitration hearing suggested that it was not enforced. Finally, the court observed that "recreation" was inherent in the employee's job. Almost any activity in which he took part could have been considered "recreational." For that reason, it was necessary to consider the purpose of claimant's participation in the wallyball game. That purpose was incidental to his employment. See generally Larson's Workers' Compensation Law, §§ 22.01, 22.02, 22.04, 22.05. Create an account or login to post comments.
|