The Circuit Court of Cook County held that
the finding of the Commission - that claimant failed to prove her
accidental injuries arose out of her employment - was clearly erroneous,
where evidence indicated claimant was hurrying toward the fax machine to
perform a work related function on a day when her workload had doubled.
Claimant, a mortgage sales assistant,
alleged she was hurrying toward the fax machine at work when the
rubberized sole of her right shoe grabbed the carpet, causing her to
lurch forward into the filing cabinet. She was diagnosed with w a
complete Achilles tendon rupture. Claimant testified that she normally
assisted four mortgage counselors. She stated the office was very hectic
and she was A rushing around.@ She saw no defect in the carpet or floor.
The arbitrator awarded benefits, finding
claimant was exposed to a risk greater than that of the general public.
In a decision reported at 9 ILWCLB 1137, the Commission reversed,
finding claimant failed to prove she sustained an accident arising out
of and in the course of her employment. The Commission determined
claimant was exposed to a neutral risk that had no particular employment
or personal characteristics.
The Circuit Court of Cook County set aside
and remanded the decision of the Commission, holding that the finding of
the Commission - that claimant failed to prove her accidental injuries
arose out of her employment - was clearly erroneous. The court noted
that at the time of the accident, claimant was on her way to fax
something work-related. She was performing an act which she was
instructed to perform or might reasonable be expected to perform.
Because claimant was rushing toward the fax machine carrying material to
be faxed, she was exposed to a risk greater than that to which the
general public was exposed. Further, because claimant was working for
eight mortgage consultants on the day of the accident rather than her
regular four consultants, she was doing twice as much work, thereby
causing it to be a hectic day. The court noted defendant had not
submitted any evidence to refute this evidence. Therefore, the court
found claimant's fall was explained, as she was hurrying to the fax
machine on a day when her workload doubled.
