part 3: A DOZEN THINGS EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT WORKER'S COMPENSATION LAW

II. Arising Out Of

The Illinois Worker's Compensation Act was passed by the legislature to provide financial protection to employees who suffer accidental injuries at work if the injury was "arising out of" and "in the course of their employment". An injury is compensable under the Act only if it arises out of the employment. This
means that the injury is traceable to a definite time, place and cause and incurs in the course of the employment.

For a work injury to be compensable under the Act, the employment must expose the worker to a greater risk than faced by the general public. If the risk is purely personal to the employee, the employee is not entitled to benefits under the Act. An example is: if the employee fell down a flight of stairs and there was no defect in the flight of stairs, that injury would generally would not be compensable under the Act because the injured worker was not exposed to a risk that was greater than to the general public. If the employee was walking down the steps while carrying a large box for the employer while in a hurry to bring the box to another co-worker to facilitate production and fell down the stairs, this generally would be sufficient to qualify for benefits under the Act.

Just because an injury occurred at work does not automatically make the injury compensable under the Act. The injury must arise out of and in the course of employment. Although some states have adopted a law that allows recovery for an injury if it occurs during working hours, regardless if the risk was personal or not, Illinois is not yet one of those states.

A. Fights at Work

A fight between co-workers at work regarding the performance of work is compensable under the Act. In cases that involve fights at work, the injured worker cannot obtain benefits if he was the "aggressor" in the fight. If the fight or altercation does not involve the work of the employer and is purely personal, compensation for such injuries will be denied. An example of that is when an employee was shot by another employee because the injured employee broke off the other employee's antenna in the parking lot.

B. Recreational Activities

An injury to an employee while playing on the company's softball team may qualify for worker's compensation benefits under the Act, but each case is fact-specific. If the employer supplied the uniforms, paid for the entrance fee for the team, allowed the employees time off, with pay, for practice and the games, an injury resulting from the softball game generally will be covered under the Act.

An injury resulting at a company picnic may or may not be compensable under the Act, depending on the facts of the case. If the employer required the employee's attendance at the company picnic and paid employee to attend the company picnic, or his attendance at the company picnic was mandatory, then that injury would qualify for benefits under the Act. If the employee's attendance at the company picnic is voluntary, and the employee has the option of attending the company picnic or having the day off, an injury occurring at that company picnic will generally be denied benefits under the Act.

C. Intoxicated Employee

An employee who was intoxicated and becomes injured at work generally will qualify for benefits under the Act, except when the employer can show that the intoxication of the employee was so severe that the employee was unable to perform his job. The courts have held that failure to pass a field sobriety test, or being charged with a DUI or having a blood alcohol content above the legal limit, generally will not automatically deny the injured employee benefits under the Act. But, employers will argue that if an injured employee was legally intoxicated at the time of his work injury he was unable to safely operate a motor vehicle thus his injury did not arise out of the employment. The general rule of thumb is that alcohol or drug use will not bar benefits under the Act.

There is one extreme case where a waitress fell down a flight of stairs and the court held that her injury did not arise out of her employment because she was so intoxicated when she fell down the stairs. She had a blood alcohol content of 0.408, which according to the medical literature can be fatal for most people.

Continue Reading...