Case Law Update: Unexplained Fall

Wednesday, October 1, 2014 | 0

Norlina Philbeck worked as a field interviewer in social sciences research for the University of Michigan. As a part of her job, Philbeck was required to travel from her home in North Carolina to various places along the East Coast to interview potential participants for research studies. On Aug. 8, 2011, Philbeck was in Columbia, Maryland, conducting interviews for a study. She was at an apartment complex attempting to interview a participant. After discovering that the participant was not eligible to participate in the study, Philbeck began walking back to her car, and while doing so, she fell and fractured her left arm near the wrist. 

At the Industrial Commission hearing before a deputy commissioner, she testified that she did not know why she fell.
 
Philbeck’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits was denied by the university on the basis that her fall and injury were the result of an idiopathic condition. The deputy commissioner filed an opinion and award denying Philbeck’s claim for benefits, noting that her injury was not the result of her job. Philbeck appealed to the full commission. The full commission issued an opinion and award reversing the deputy commissioner’s holding and awarding Philbeck benefits. The university appealed the full commission’s decision to the Court of Appeals.
 
On July 15, 2014, in Philbeck v. Univ. of Michigan, the Court of Appeals affirmed the full commission’s decision awarding Philbeck benefits. The court applied the case law for unexplained falls and concluded that there was an inference that the fall arose out of employment. The court noted that if there is no evidence that an outside force or a condition independent from the employment caused the fall, then there will be an inference that the unexplained fall arose out of the employment. The court distinguished unexplained falls from idiopathic condition cases. The court noted that the latter situation, if an injury is clearly attributable to an employee’s idiopathic condition and not to any other risks or factors related to employment, then the injury will not be compensable. Here, the court found that the evidence supported a finding that Philbeck suffered an unexplained fall and that her injury was not caused by an idiopathic condition and, as such, found that she was entitled to benefits.
 
Risk-Handling Hint: Philbeck provides a reminder that unexplained fall cases will most often be found compensable unless there is strong evidence that the fall was caused solely by the employee’s idiopathic condition or some other intervening factor unrelated to his or her employment. Early investigation into an employee’s health history, pre-existing conditions and the specific facts surrounding the injury are important when determining whether to accept a case involving an unexplained fall.

This column was written by the Teague Campbell Dennis & Gorham law firm, which has offices in Raleigh and Asheville, North Carolina. It was reprinted with the firm's permission from its Risk Alert newsletter.