Joseph P. Basile, Chicago
E-mail Joseph P. Basile
Claimant’s Injury Arose Out of Her Employment and Was Not Barred by §11 of the Workers’ Compensation Act
The Workers’ Compensation Commission Division of the Illinois Appellate Court upheld a majority decision of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission in Helping Hands Center v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, 2024 IL App (1st) 240057WC-U. The claimant, a medical assistant for the respondent, was injured June 19, 2017, while decorating an office for her supervisor’s birthday party. 2024 IL App (1st) 240057 at ¶3. She was standing on a desk to hang decorations from the ceiling when she lost her balance and fell, resulting in injuries to her right foot and the right side of her body. Id.
As a medical assistant, the claimant answered telephones, scheduled appointments, took vitals, assisted the doctor, made house calls, and performed other tasks. It was customary to celebrate birthdays and other special occasions, and the claimant had decorated the office in the past. One week before the accident, the claimant’s supervisor instructed her to decorate the office for a nurse who was leaving. 2024 IL App (1st) 240057 at ¶6. The supervisor told the claimant to purchase party decorations for the occasion, for which she was reimbursed. The claimant was using the same decorations when she fell.
The claimant testified that no one ordered her to decorate and that she did so voluntarily. It was customary to decorate for special occasions, and no one instructed her to stand on the desk to hang the decorations. Her supervisor testified that during her employment she never instructed any employee to decorate for a party. She testified that decorating was voluntary. She also testified that, while it was not a policy, the office was frequently decorated for parties and other events.
The claimant was taken off work and was treated by Dr. Robert Miklos, who diagnosed a Lisfranc fracture of the first and second metatarsal of the right foot and a fracture of the fourth metatarsal base of the right foot. 2024 IL App (1st) 240057 at ¶12. Dr. Miklos performed an open reduction and internal fixation of the Lisfranc fracture with a screw placed in the second metatarsal base. Dr. Miklos released the claimant December 5, 2017, but she continued to experience pain in the right foot. 2024 IL App (1st) 240057 at ¶13.
The claimant left her employment with the respondent in January 2018. Id. In August 2018, she presented to Dr. Tomasz Szmyd for foot pain and was treated conservatively for six weeks. 2024 IL App (1st) 240057 at ¶14. She was not able to see Dr. Miklos because he no longer accepted her insurance. She returned to Dr. Szymd February 22, 2020, and he administered a trigger point injection to the right foot. Id. The claimant did not seek further treatment due to the risk of COVID until March 2021, when she saw Dr. Ping Chan. 2024 IL App (1st) 240057 at ¶15. Dr. Chan performed surgery on the right foot in November 2021 to excise an exostosis that was at the base of the first metatarsal cuneiform area. Id. The claimant’s final visit with Dr. Chan was December 2, 2021. Id.
The arbitrator found that the claimant was injured due to a risk distinctly associated with her employment, i.e., she was performing a task that she might reasonably be expected to perform incident to her assigned duties as it was a normal practice that she had performed previously. The arbitrator held that §11 of the Workers’ Compensation Act, 820 ILCS 305/1, et seq., did not preclude recovery because the claimant was not participating in a party or recreational program since the act she was performing did not involve “stopping work, sharing food and drink, socializing,” or similar activities. 2024 IL App (1st) 240057 at ¶17. The arbitrator also found that based on a chain-of-events analysis, the claimant’s current condition of ill-being was causally connected to the accident. The Commission, in a 2-1 decision, affirmed and adopted the arbitrator’s decision. 2024 IL App (1st) 240057 at ¶18.
The respondent raised three issues on appeal from the circuit court decision confirming the Commission’s decision. Primarily, the respondent argued that §11 of the Act barred any recovery. The respondent also argued that the injury did not arise out of the employment and that the causal connection finding was erroneous. 2024 IL App (1st) 240057 at ¶20.
Section 11 of the Act precludes recovery for “[a]ccidental injuries incurred while participating in voluntary recreational programs including but not limited to athletic events, parties and picnics” unless the employee was ordered by the employer to participate. 2024 IL App (1st) 240057 at ¶22. The respondent argued that the Commission’s interpretation of “recreational program” was too narrow and that the purpose of decorating was to celebrate these occasions and, therefore, was no less a recreational program than a party. 2024 IL App (1st) 240057 at ¶23.
Because there was no dispute that the claimant voluntarily engaged in the decorating, the court analyzed whether she was engaged in a party or a recreational program. The Commission cited Elmhurst Park District v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation, 395 Ill.App.3d 404, 917 N.E.2d 1052, 334 Ill.Dec. 977 (1st Dist. 2009), and Glassie v. Papergraphics, Inc., 248 Ill.App.3d 621, 618 N.E.2d 885, 188 Ill.Dec. 315 (1st Dist. 1993), which the court summarized in its opinion.
The court determined that the Commission reasonably found a distinction between the claimant’s actions — decorating the office for her supervisor’s birthday — and a party. The Commission was guided by the two cases cited. “Significantly, the claimant was not injured while gathering, socializing, or sharing common food or drink.” 2024 IL App (1st) 240057 at ¶28. At the time of the accident the claimant was alone. Her activities involved decorating the work area of the person being recognized. This did not involve breaking work for a party. This was also not a recreational program. The evidence did not support the notion that the claimant decorated as a means of diversion or to refresh herself. The Commission’s finding that §11 did not bar recovery was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
The court then addressed the issue of “arising out of” employment. 2024 IL App (1st) 240057 at ¶29. In its analysis, the court discussed the categories of risks. The Commission found the risk was associated with the employment because the claimant was performing an act she might reasonably be expected to perform as incident to her duties. Because it was a routine practice to decorate for birthdays and other celebrations, the Commission could reasonably infer that decorating for special occasions was incident to the fulfillment of the claimant’s duties. Her supervisor had also decorated in the past and had asked the claimant to decorate the office a week before the accident for another event. 2024 IL App (1st) 240057 at ¶36.
The court rejected the respondent’s argument that decorating the office was not incident to the claimant’s duties as a medical assistant or to the nature of the respondent’s business. The opinion points out that the fact that the claimant, her supervisor, and other employees routinely decorated the office for special occasions rendered the activity incident to their job even if decorating for special occasions was not expressly part of their job description.
Concerning the causal connection issue, the respondent argued it was against the manifest weight of the evidence for the Commission to find the claimant’s condition of ill-being causally related after her discharge from Dr. Miklos’ care in December 2017. The court disagreed, noting the Commission found causation based on a chain-of-events theory. The claimant testified that after she was released from Dr. Miklos, she did not have another injury to her right foot but continued to have pain. She sought additional treatment and had a second surgery with Dr. Chan. Based on the record, the Commission’s conclusion was reasonable.
For more information about workers’ compensation, see WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PRACTICE (IICLE®, 2023). Online Library subscribers can view it for free by clicking here. If you don’t currently subscribe to the Online Library, visit www.iicle.com/subscriptions.