DESIREE HARRIS, Applicant

ASHA FAMILY SERVICES INC, Employer

AMCOMP ASSURANCE CORP, Insurer

An administrative law judge (ALJ) for the Worker's Compensation Division of the Department of Workforce Development issued a decision in this matter. A timely petition for review was filed.

The commission has considered the petition and the positions of the parties, and it has reviewed the evidence submitted to the ALJ. Based on its review, the commission agrees with the decision of the ALJ, and it adopts the findings and order in that decision as its own.

The findings and order of the administrative law judge are affirmed.

Dated and mailed January 26, 2005
harrid . wsd : 175 : 8   ND § 3.34

/s/ James T. Flynn, Chairman

/s/ David B. Falstad, Commissioner

/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner

The employer asserts in its petition for commission review that the administrative law judge erred in determining that the applicant's fall at work on the employer's premises on October 11, 2002, resulted in a compensable work injury. The employer contended at the hearing that the applicant's fall on October 11, 2002, was idiopathic and therefore not compensable. The employer states in its petition for commission review that even though the applicant's fall on October 11, 2002, occurred while she was performing services for the employer, the incident did not arise out of her employment. The employer states that the applicant has failed to establish that her fall can be explained by evidence of a cause related to employment.

The applicant testified that on October 11, 2002, she was performing her normal duties wearing leather-soled shoes when she fell at work. The applicant testified that she was carrying some client files and walking down the hall at the county jail when she turned the corner through a doorway and slipped, and her knees, hands and wrists hit the floor and her shoulder hit the door jamb. The applicant testified that the floor was freshly waxed and was slippery. The applicant explained that she had noticed spots in the hallway that were unusually slippery prior to her fall on October 11, 2002, including the spot where she fell. The applicant stated that the floor was very shiny and glossy. The applicant indicated in her recorded statement given to the employer on October 31, 2002, that there was something unusual about the spot where she fell and that it seemed pretty slick.

This is not a case of an idiopathic fall as contended by the employer. There was nothing in the record to indicate that the applicant had a history of seizures or fainting which were conditions personal to her, which could have caused the fall. In addition, this is not a case of an unexplained fall. The applicant testified that the spot where she fell was slippery. The evidence did not indicate that the floor had been freshly waxed on that day. However, the commission consulted with the administrative law judge concerning his assessment of the applicant's demeanor and testimony that the spot where she fell was slippery and indeed more slippery than the surrounding floor. The administrative law judge indicated that he found the applicant to be straightforward and credible concerning the circumstances surrounding her fall and the condition of the floor leading to her fall. The applicant's testimony is consistent with her recorded statement in which she indicated that the spot where she fell was slick. The applicant's testimony is corroborated by the written statement of Deputy Paetow who witnessed the applicant's fall on October 11,2002. Deputy Paetow wrote that she observed the applicant suddenly slip as she was walking at work on October 11, 2002.

This case is similar to the facts in Briggs & Stratton Corp. v. DILHR, 43 Wis. 2d 398 (1969) in which a worker fell at work when she was slowly walking down an aisle in the employer's plant. In the Briggs & Stratton case the worker testified that she fell when her right foot was stopped because of something in the aisle which then caused her foot to fly out from under her leading her to her injuries. The worker could not identify the object which caused her fall. The Supreme Court noted in Briggs & Stratton that the employee knew how she fell, where she fell, and she knew what caused her fall although she was not able to identify the precise object that stopped her foot. The court noted that the surface where the applicant fell contained chips of aluminum which could stick in the tarred surface and cause a foot to stop. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held in Briggs & Stratton that it had no difficulty in determining that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the applicant's burden of proof that the fall was not idiopathic, and there was evidence of a separate and work-related cause which was sufficient to find a compensable injury.

Similarly in our current case, the applicant knew how she fell, where she fell, and she knew what caused her fall, that being that the floor was slippery in the area where she fell. Although the applicant could not identify the specific reason for the floor being slippery, the commission finds that the applicant has established that her fall at work on October 11, 2002, was not idiopathic and was not an unexplained fall. The evidence indicates the applicant fell because the floor was slippery and slick at the spot where she fell. Therefore, the commission finds that the applicant's fall on October 11, 2002, arose out of her employment while performing services incidental to her employment, and therefore the administrative law judge appropriately awarded the applicant temporary total disability benefits from October 16, 2002 through October 30, 2002, as well as medical expense.

cc:
Attorney Jerome A. Konkel
Attorney Douglas M. Feldman

[ Search Decisions ] - [ WC Legal Resources ] - [ LIRC Home Page ]

uploaded 2005/01/31