Soya v. Health First, Inc./CCMSI  

HR Law Cases

Compensability/Arising Out Of
(Jamey Rodgers/Bill Rogner)(2-21-22)
 
The DCA reversed and remanded the JCC’s Order denying compensability. The claimant did not know why she fell at work. The JCC’s denial tracked Valcourt’s analysis and denied benefits,  finding “an accident is compensable under Valcourt only if the employment necessarily exposed the claimant to conditions that would substantially contribute to the risk of injury to which the Claimant would not normally be exposed during her non-employment life.” The DCA found that Valcourt’s  increased hazard analysis only applies where there is a contributing cause outside of the employment.  The court cited the 2012 Ross decision’s language that “compensation shall be payable regardless of fault” and states “clumsiness is covered.”  They rejected the E/C’s allegation the claimant was not “actively engaged” in her employment, finding such an argument would result in claimants alleging tort claims against employers when they are on premises, but not literally performing work. Judge Bilbrey, one of two dissenters in Valcourt, wrote a concurrence noting that this case, and last week’s Silberberg opinion, resolve confusion over Valcourt’s meaning. Workplace slip and falls remain compensable, as long as they arise out of employment. Silberberg’s “any exertion” while at work standard suffices to make a fall for unknown reasons compensable, absent some purely personal cause or identified competing idiopathic or pre-existing condition. The premises rule was not abrogated by Valcourt, and per the concurrence, specifically overruled only four pre-1994 arising out of cases.   Click here to view Opinion