Dukich v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n
2017 IL App (2d) 160351WC
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Barbara Dukich, a school attendance clerk, slipped and fell on wet pavement while walking from the school (Door 2) to her employer-assigned parking space during a rainy lunch break on Feb 23, 2012; she sustained head, nasal, shoulder, and hip injuries.
- Security video, contemporaneous medical records, and testimony established it was raining and the pavement was wet; no ice, snow, puddles, defects, or employer-mandated route were shown.
- Arbitrator awarded TTD, medical expenses, and 10% PPD, finding the walkway was an employer-controlled path to an employee parking spot and the wet condition posed an employment risk.
- The Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission reversed, treating the hazard as a neutral risk (wet pavement from rain) and finding Dukich was not exposed to that risk to a greater degree than the public.
- The circuit court affirmed the Commission; the appellate court (this opinion) affirms, holding rain-wet pavement is a neutral risk and Dukich failed to show increased exposure due to employment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Dukich’s fall "arise out of" employment? | Dukich: injury caused by hazardous condition on employer premises (designated employee parking path), so compensable. | Employer: fall caused by neutral risk (rain-wet pavement); no defect, no required route, no work task — not compensable. | Held: No — rain-wet pavement is a neutral risk; Dukich failed to show greater exposure than the public. |
| Was the wet pavement a "hazardous condition" tied to employment? | Dukich: employer-controlled lot and assigned parking make the condition employment-related. | Employer: hazardous-condition cases involve ice/snow or defects; ordinary rain not a hazardous condition. | Held: No — absent ice/snow, defect, or other distinctive hazard, ordinary rainfall is not a hazardous condition making the risk employment-related. |
| Should neutral-risk analysis apply (need to show increased exposure)? | Dukich: disagreed — argued this fits hazardous-condition precedent so neutral-risk analysis unnecessary. | Employer: neutral-risk analysis applies; claimant must show heightened exposure. | Held: Neutral-risk analysis applies; claimant did not prove increased exposure. |
| Standard of review for Commission’s factual findings | Dukich: de novo because material facts undisputed. | Employer: manifest-weight review because multiple reasonable inferences exist. | Held: Manifest-weight standard applies; Commission’s factual inference not against manifest weight. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sisbro, Inc. v. Industrial Comm’n, 207 Ill. 2d 193 (worker must prove injury arose out of and in course of employment)
- First Cash Financial Servs. v. Industrial Comm’n, 367 Ill. App. 3d 102 (employment-related risks include tripping on premises defects or slippery indoor surfaces)
- Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 129 Ill. 2d 52 (mere regular use of a feature on employer premises does not make a neutral risk compensable)
- Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 91 Ill. 2d 210 (hazardous condition on employer premises can render injury compensable)
- Mores-Harvey v. Industrial Comm’n, 345 Ill. App. 3d 1034 (employer control of parking can create compensable risk when hazardous condition present)
- Brady v. Louis Ruffolo & Sons Constr. Co., 143 Ill. 2d 542 (positional-risk doctrine rejected)
- American Freight Forwarding Corp. v. Industrial Comm’n, 31 Ill. 2d 293 (injury from elements compensable only if employment increases exposure)