The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the ruling of lower courts and the Workers Compensation Commission in finding that a chef's knee injury was not the result of a neutral risk but was causally connected to his duties as an employee. The case is McAllister v. Ill. Workers' Comp. Comm'n, 181 N.E.3d 656 (Ill. 2020).
Background
Kevin McAllister was a sous chef working at North Pond restaurant in Chicago. His duties included checking in orders, arranging the restaurant's walk-in cooler, making sauces, and prepping and cooking food.
McAllister injured his right knee on August 7, 2014, while searching for a pan of carrots in the restaurant's walk-in cooler. He went looking for the carrots when another cook said they misplaced them in the cooler. McAllister knelt down to check the top, middle, and bottom shelves, and under the bottom shelves.
As he stood up, he felt his knee pop and lock up, and could not straighten his leg. He was taken to the emergency room and later underwent surgery to repair a torn medial meniscus. He previously had surgery on the same knee in 2013.
Legal History
McAllister sought workers' compensation benefits for the injury. An arbitrator ruled in McAllister's favor, finding that searching for the carrots was an act his employer could reasonably expect him to perform as part of his duties. He was awarded temporary total disability benefits, permanent partial disability benefits, and medical expenses.
However, upon review, the Workers' Compensation Commission reversed the arbitrator's decision, finding that McAllister did not prove his injury arose out of his employment. The Commission determined that standing up from a kneeling position was a neutral risk with no employment-related characteristics and that McAllister was not exposed to a greater risk than the general public.
McAllister appealed to the Circuit Court of Cook County, which affirmed the Commission's decision and agreed the injury was the result of a noncompensable neutral risk. McAllister then appealed to the Appellate Court, Workers' Compensation Commission Division, which also affirmed the Commission's decision.
Illinois Supreme Court
McAllister again appealed, and the case was brought before the Illinois Supreme Court. The Court first acknowledged that the Act that provides workers' compensation benefits is a remedial statute, and should be interpreted liberally to carry out its purpose of protecting injured workers. To be entitled to benefits, an injury must both arise out of the injured party's employment and in the course of their employment.
"In the course of employment" means when an injury is sustained while a claimant is at work or while performing reasonable activities in conjunction with their employment. The employer did not dispute that the injury occurred while in the course of employment.
"Arising out of employment" means that the injury must have a causal connection to employment. The court, quoting another case, states, "To satisfy this requirement it must be shown that the injury had its origin in some risk connected with, or incidental to, the employment so as to create a causal connection between the employment and the accidental injury."
The Three Categories of Risk
To determine if an injury arose out of a claimant's employment, risks are separated into three categories. The categories of risks recognized by case law are "risks distinctly associated with the employment, risks personal to the employee, and neutral risks which have no particular employment or personal characteristics." Employment risks are compensable, but personal risks and neutral risks are not.
Employment risks include obvious industrial injuries and occupational diseases such as tripping on a defect on the work premises and performing work-related tasks. Personal risks include nonoccupational diseases, pre-existing conditions, or injuries caused by personal enemies. Neutral risks include things like stray bullets, dog bites, random attacks, and lightning strikes.
If it is determined that McAllister's injuries arose from an employment-related risk, then he would be awarded benefits. An employment-related risk must meet at least one of three qualifiers: the employee must have been performing acts they were instructed to perform by the employer, acts they had a common-law or statutory duty to perform, or acts the employee is reasonably expected to perform to carry out their assigned duties.
The Commission had classified McAllister's injury as a neutral risk, reasoning that anyone could be injured standing up from a kneeling position, whether at work or at home. The Court disagreed with that and found that McAllister's injury arose from an employment-related risk because one of his specific duties as a sous-chef was to arrange food in the walk-in cooler.
When he learned of the misplaced carrots, it was reasonable for his employer to expect him to search for them. The act that caused his injury was a risk incidental to his employment.
The Court also pointed out that it is generally recognized that employees who assist coworkers in furtherance of their employer's business are performing employment-related activities, particularly when such assistance falls within their job responsibilities. McAllister wasn't just helping a colleague, he was also fulfilling his own duty to maintain the walk-in cooler.
The court found that the knee injury was employment related, being caused by an act that was incidental and causally connected to McAllister's job duties, and one that his employer might reasonably expect him to perform.
The Caterpillar Tractor Test
The court then considered whether a compensable injury can arise out of employment when the employee was injured while performing common body movements or everyday activities. The Caterpillar Tractor test, named after a 1989 case, lays out the framework in making that determination.
Under the test, an injury arises out of employment when the employee was performing one of three categories of employment-related acts: acts instructed by the employer, acts required by common law or statutory duty, or acts the employee might reasonably be expected to perform incident to assigned duties.
The court stated that another case referenced by the lower courts, Adcock, added an extra step to prove a risk was an employment-related risk that is not found in the Caterpillar Tractor test. Adcock required additional evidence that a claimant's work required them to perform the common body movement or everyday activity more frequently than the general public. The court stated that the extra step is not required by Caterpillar Tractor, which is the prevailing authority, and overruled Adcock.
The court reversed the lower courts' judgment and ruled that McAllister's knee injury was employment-related, caused by acts incidental to and causally connected to his job duties. They also held that Caterpillar Tractor, not Adcock, is the correct test to determine whether an injury caused by performing everyday activities arose from employment.
Editor's Note: This case has a huge impact, with the Illinois Supreme Court overruling the standard set by Adcock and affirming that the Caterpillar Tractor test standard should be used to determine if workplace injuries due to everyday movements are compensable.