When we last heard from Attorney Michael Bantz – on Wednesday – we reported that he prevailed in a claim before the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission based on issues surrounding the petitioner’s credibility. He’s chalked up another success story as he also recently succeeded in a Review Decision where the IWCC reversed the Arbitrator on whether a compensable accident had occurred. The IWCC adopted the respondent’s arguments and awarded no benefits to the petitioner.
The petitioner, a correctional officer, had chosen to use a bathroom in the basement of the employer’s facility, even though there was a working bathroom on the ground floor that he could have used without having to go up or down any stairs. While returning back to his post and going up the stairs, petitioner testified that he tripped on a step and fell forward. The petitioner alleged during his trial testimony that he had thought he heard a call for a new detainee being brought in, though in fact, no such call was issued. The petitioner asserted that he felt he had to hurry up the stairs because of this call.
The respondent disputed whether the petitioner’s fall was accidental and also whether it arose out of his employment. The Arbitrator found the petitioner’s fall to be compensable, though the Commission reversed that decision on Review. The Commission noted that surveillance footage of the stairwell and fall showed that the petitioner never made any indication that he was listening to his radio, did not appear to be hurried or rushed, and that no such radio call regarding a new detainee was actually made at the time of his fall. It was also noted that, prior to trial, petitioner had never mentioned to any other employees that he felt he needed to hurry at the time of the fall because he though he heard a call.
Respondent’s witness, the petitioner’s direct supervisor, testified at the time of trial that he had only first learned of the petitioner’s alleged reason for hurrying on the steps at the time of trial. The Commission also noted that when the petitioner described his fall to medical providers, he never made any mention of having to hurry or being in a rush. The Commission went on to find that the petitioner’s job did not increase his risk of using stairs on any quantitative basis, as he only used them twice a day. The petitioner was also not exposed to any increased qualitative risk since there were no defects or particularly dangerous aspects to the stairs at issue in this case. Finally, the Commission reiterated that the petitioner himself chose to use the downstairs bathroom even though there was a functional bathroom on the ground floor, where he worked.
The respondent’s victory in this case was aided from a variety of evidentiary sources, including the witness testimony, the surveillance video of the fall and time immediately before that fall, and the subpoenaed medical records. Respondent was also able to bring critical legal analysis regarding how falls on stairs should be assessed. Combining both factual and legal arguments is crucial in establishing the best possible defense for an employer in a questionable workers’ compensation claim. Congratulations again to Michael!
Inman & Fitzgibbons, Ltd. 