When Does Inferring Go Too Far?

By: The Workers’ Compensation Practice Group

There has been a lot of discussion recently regarding the Commission’s ability to infer facts, particularly from the standpoint of the initial compensability of a claim. From the defense perspective, the willingness of the Commission to infer facts to support causation/compensability has been a cause for concern. Recently, the Court of Appeals addressed a Full Commission finding that the claimant’s injury arose out of his employment, based on an inference made by the Full Commission, in the case of United Airlines, Inc. v. Bryan Andrew Taylor, an unpublished Opinion.

In United Airlines, the claimant worked as a ramp agent. His job duties included unloading baggage and cargo. On the date of the accident, he was unloading a plane and walking up a jet bridge with two strollers under his arms. The claimant estimated that the stroller in his right hand weighed 30 pounds while the stroller in his left hand weighed about five pounds. As he was walking up the stairs, his right knee “popped.” He was diagnosed with a dislocated patella of the right knee. The claimant acknowledged that he did not slip or trip, and admitted that there was no defect with, or debris on, the stairs.

The Deputy Commissioner denied benefits finding that “in the absence of any non-speculative attributable causal relationship to his employment, there is no evidence that the reason for the knee popping arose out of his employment.”

On appeal to the Full Commission, the Commission reversed, finding that “we can infer from these facts, as well as the histories contained in the medical records, that the weight and bulk of the stroller, as well as the other lighter stroller under the claimant’s other arm, were conditions of the employment that caused or contributed to the claimant’s injury.”

Commissioner Williams dissented, arguing that in the absence of any medical opinion that there was an increased risk of injury and where the claimant himself did not testify to a specific increased risk, the Full Commission’s willingness to infer a finding that the claimant’s injury arose out of his employment was nothing more than speculation.

The Court of Appeals noted that in order to establish a compensable claim, it was necessary for the claimant to prove the critical link between the conditions of the workplace and the injury in order for the injury to qualify as arising out of the employment. While acknowledging that the Commission has the ability to draw inferences from the facts before it, the Court of Appeals concluded that the inference of a connection between the conditions of employment and the injury in this case fell into the realm of speculation, as suggested by Commissioner Williams. In reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeals noted that there was no defect with respect to the stairs; that the weight the claimant carried was not particularly heavy; and that there was no medical testimony or opinion of a causal connection between the conditions of employment and the injury. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals concluded that the evidence failed to establish that the accident arose out of the employment.

We are hopeful that the Court of Appeals Opinion in United Airlines, will somewhat temper the Commission’s willingness to infer facts moving forward.

Based on this Opinion, it is important to keep the following in mind when analyzing claims such as this to determine if the injury arises out of the employment:

  1. The claimant needs to establish an added risk.
  2. The claimant needs to establish that the added risk was the proximate cause of the injury.

For more information on the ruling referenced above, please see:
United Airlines, Inc. v. Bryan Andrew Taylor (Record No. 1169-15-4, March 15, 2016)