Hansen alleges that he suffered a compensable injury. The court noted that a compensable injury is an accidental injury causing internal or external harm that arises out of and in the course of employment. A compensable injury must be established by medical evidence supported by objective findings, findings that cannot come under the voluntary control of the patient. It was Hansen's duty to prove a compensable injury by a preponderance of the evidence.

First Hansen argued that his injury was not idiopathic. According to prior court decisions, an idiopathic injury is one whose cause is personal in nature, or peculiar to the individual. Hansen disagrees that his injury was caused by his dream, instead taking the position that the injury occurred due to his employer-provided sleeping arrangements. This argument is basically a request for the court to revisit the evidence and reach a different conclusion. The Commission had substantial evidence to support their decision, and the standard of review in the appellate court is that if reasonable minds could reach the conclusion the Commission arrived upon, the appellate court must affirm that decision.

Hanson's next argument was that even if his injury was deemed to be idiopathic, the work conditions that he was subjected to contributed to the risk of injury, so it should be deemed compensable. The court noted that because an idiopathic injury is not related to employment, it is generally not compensable unless employment conditions contributed to the risk, for example, putting a worker with equilibrium in a position that increases the dangerous effect of a fall. The Commission found that in his sleeping quarters at work, there was no added danger or risk, and it was reasonable to conclude that Hansen would likely have experienced the same type of sleeping conditions at home in his bed. Thus, the sleeping arrangement at Hansen's work did not add or contribute to the risk of injury. Again, the issue here is if reasonable minds could come to the conclusion reached by the Commission. The appellate court determined that reasonable minds could indeed reach the same conclusion, and Hansen failed to prove that he sustained a compensable injury.

Editor's Note: Initially, when reading this case summary it seems impossible for a reasonable person to come to the conclusion that the Commission reached. Generally, if a person is injured while on the job, he should be compensated for his injury. This case is a little different, though, because of the twenty-four-hour shift nature of the firefighting and EMT positions. The employer here clearly had to make sure that the sleeping arrangements were safe and did not pose any increased risk of injury. Often, firefighters and EMT's have to jump out of bed quickly in order to respond to an emergency, so it seems reasonable that the employer would make the sleeping situation as safe as possible for the quick movements that occur after a call is received.