An Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the ruling of the Workers’ Compensation Commission that a traveling employee of the Town of Cicero was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits after falling down the stairs in the town hall. The case is Town of Cicero v. Ill. Workers' Comp. Comm'n, 256 N.E.3d 355 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024).
Background
Claimant Michael Iniquez worked as a blight inspector for the Town of Cicero, where his duties included inspecting buildings for broken windows, checking the condition of paint, examining the condition of garages and lawns, and performing other related tasks. He was required to report to the town hall each morning to collect his work phone and his assignments for the day. Then he would use a vehicle provided by Cicero to carry out his duties inspecting properties.
On July 2, 2018, after downloading his assignments from a computer in his office, the claimant, while going down the stairs, slipped and fell, and sustained multiple injuries. He was taken to an emergency room, where he was diagnosed with a right shoulder contusion and a fracture of the thoracic spine. He sought workers’ compensation benefits but was denied on July 24, 2018.
Arbitration Hearings
Arbitration hearings were held on May 20, 2019, and January 21, 2020, and a decision was issued by the arbitrator on February 3, 2020. The arbitrator denied the claimant benefits, finding that the claimant did not meet his burden of proving that his injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment.
The arbitrator determined that the claimant was not a traveling employee at the time of his fall, and while his injuries occurred in the course of his employment, they did not arise out of his employment.
Petition for Review
A petition for review was filed with the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, which reversed the decision of the arbitrator. The Commission held that the claimant was a traveling employee at the time of his accident, and that the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment.
Cicero was ordered to pay all reasonable and necessary medical expenses incurred by the claimant, pay temporary total disability benefits, pay for bilateral shoulder surgeries recommended by the employee’s physician, and pay any interest due.
Cicero sought a judicial review of the Commission’s decision. The Circuit Court of Cook County affirmed the decision on March 27, 2023.
Appellate Court
Cicero then appealed to the appellate court. Cicero argued that injuries suffered by the claimant from falling down stairs did not arise out of his employment since traversing stairs is a neutral risk and not compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Act. Cicero also asserted that the claimant was not a traveling employee at the time of the accident.
The court stated that to qualify for workers’ compensation benefits, a claimant must prove they suffered an injury that arose out of and in the course of their employment. Both elements must be true at the time of the injury.
The court found that the facts showed the claimant was injured while at work and on Cicero’s premises. It was undeniable that he was injured in the course of his employment. To prove his injury arose out of his employment, the injury must have had its origin in some risk connected with the employment so as to create a causal connection between the employment and the injury. The injury must arise from something connected to the employee performing their duties.
Traveling Employee
Traveling is a key part of a traveling employee’s duties. For the claimant, traveling away from the town hall was an essential element of their duties. Cicero argued that the claimant was not yet a traveling employee at the time of the accident, claiming that he would only have been a traveling employee after leaving the town hall premises.
The court disagreed, stating that the claimant was required to report to the town hall at 7:30 am, and had already gone to his office and retrieved his work phone and assignments for the day. The claimant was injured after his workday had already begun.
A traveling employee is treated differently from other employees when determining whether their injury arose out of and in the course of their employment. For a traveling employee, an injury arises out of his employment if he was injured while engaging in conduct that was reasonable and foreseeable by his employer, and that determination is to be made by the Commission. The Commission found that the events that led up to the claimant’s injury were reasonable, foreseeable, and incidental to his job. The court agreed with their conclusion and affirmed the decision of the circuit court.
Editor’s note: The court ruled in this way because it was determined that the employee was a traveling employee. To qualify for workers’ compensation benefits, an employee must prove they suffered an injury that arose out of and in the course of their employment. Traveling workers are governed by slightly different rules–they may qualify for benefits if they suffered an injury while engaging in conduct that is reasonable and foreseeable by their employer. Since the Commission found that the claimant was in the course of employment and their conduct leading up to the injury was reasonable and foreseeable, they were awarded benefits.
Read More: