Rule 6 of the plant safety rules called for footwear that is sturdy and in good condition, and with proper tread to reduce slipping hazards, stating that the employer would issue a pair of boots that must be worn at the plant. Rule 9 of the rules and regulations relating to employment stated that, under the workplace uniform policy, no sandals or open toed shoes were allowed. Anderson also completed a "slips, trips and falls" training module on February 24, 2022, scoring 100%.

Testimony

Anderson testified that he knew of the rule against open-toed shoes but understood it to apply while employees were working on the production floor, not when they arrived at work or walked to the break room. He said his understanding of the rules stemmed from the actions of his employer, stating that they never provided him with any footwear.

Anderson testified he and other workers had worn slides to the break room before, passing supervisors and managers, and were never reprimanded, written up, or told to stop. He estimated that he wore slides on the path around 50% of the time, and later said it may have been less than 25%. Anderson received a verbal warning for wearing slides following the accident, but never prior to that.

Kyle Suydam, a production supervisor and one of Anderson's supervisors on the day of the accident, testified that Anderson violated both rules. He claimed that Anderson would not have slipped if he had worn proper footwear, and that wearing slides was unnecessary, unreasonable, and done solely for personal convenience.

Suydam claimed he had never seen Anderson or any other employee wear sandals in the production area before the accident and would have followed the write-up procedure if he had. On cross-examination, however, Suydam acknowledged that he was not Anderson's only supervisor, that he did not know whether the other supervisors Anderson named had seen him in slides, and that no signage at the production area doorways prohibited or required any particular footwear.

Arbitration

An arbitrator found that Anderson's injury arose out of and in the course of his employment, that his condition was causally related to the accident, and that his medical services were reasonable and necessary. The arbitrator awarded medical expenses, TTD benefits, and PPD benefits representing a 25% loss of use of the left foot.

The employer appealed the arbitrator's decision to the Commission, which modified the decision in part, and otherwise affirmed and adopted it. The Commission simply changed the start date of the TTD award by one day, noting that an award of TTD starts on the day after the accident under the Workers' Compensation Act.

The employer then sought review in the circuit court of St. Clair County, which confirmed the decision. The employer then appealed to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District.

Appellate Court

Ice Cream Specialties argued that the Commission's finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence, contending that Anderson failed to prove his injury arose out of and in the course of employment. They argued that Anderson's injury resulted from a risk purely personal to the employee, and not incidental to or connected with his job duties.

The court disagreed, finding that the brick and the slippery ground were risks directly associated with the employment. Anderson slipped in an area that was soapy, slippery and always wet, and because the employer had authorized employees to charge phones in the break room and the only path open to employees crossed the slippery surface, employees were exposed to a risk distinctly associated with the employment.

Ice Cream Specialties countered with Saunders, which states that "the violation of a rule or order of the employer takes the employee directly out of the sphere of his employment and he is injured while violating such rule or order it cannot be then said that the accident arose out of the employment, and in such a case no compensation can be recovered." It continued, "if an employee injures himself while knowingly violating his employer's safety rule for the sole purpose of his personal convenience, he is acting entirely outside the sphere of his employment, and his injury is not compensable."

However, in United States Steel Corp. V. Industrial Comm'n, the court found that compensation is not barred if the claimant did not knowingly violate the rule or if the employer acquiesced in the violation by not enforcing the rule or by allowing employees to violate it regularly.

In this case, the court found that Anderson did not knowingly violate the employer's rules, which were found to be vague. The commission found that Anderson's testimony that he believed the rule applied only while he was working on the production floor credible and reasonable.

The commission also found that the employer had acquiesced in its employees wearing slides to the break room. Anderson had testified that he and other employees repeatedly wore slides along the path to the break room and were never told they could not, reprimanded or written up.

The employer argued that the evidence of acquiescence was insufficient, citing supervisor Kyle Suydam's testimony, and the absence of corroborating testimony from other managers or coworkers. The court noted that the Commission had considered and rejected those arguments, observing that Suydam admitted he could not speak for other managers and that Anderson's statements did not amount to an admission that he knew before the accident that he was not allowed to wear slides where he fell.

Editor's Note

The Illinois appellate court affirmed the circuit court's order in favor of Anderson. The court rejected the employer's argument that Anderson's injury occurred due to a risk purely personal to Anderson, finding that the brick and slippery surface were risks directly associated with employment.

The employer also argued that an employee violating a rule is outside of the sphere of employment, and if injured while doing so, cannot receive compensation. While true, there are exceptions: if the claimant did not knowingly violate the rule and if the employer acquiesced in the violation by not enforcing the rule. The court found both to be true in this case and ruled in favor of the claimant.

Read More:

Court Awarded Workers' Compensation to Employee Who Fainted Due to Heat