Fetzer v. North Dakota Workforce Safety & Insurance
815 N.W.2d 539
N.D.2012Background
- Fetzer appeals a district court decision affirming WSI's denial of workers’ compensation Benefits for a fall at work.
- Fetzer fell while walking on employer premises during work hours; fall had no obvious cause.
- WSI denied benefits as the injury occurred in the course of employment but did not arise out of employment.
- ALJ agreed, stating unexplained falls fail to show requisite causation and rejected the positional risk theory.
- ND Supreme Court rejects adopting the positional risk doctrine for unexplained falls, insisting on a causal connection to employment.
- Dissent would adopt positional risk, arguing the injury arose out of employment despite lack of explainable cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is an unexplained fall at work compensable under arising out of employment? | Fetzer contends positional risk doctrine should apply. | WSI argues but-for/causal connection required; positional risk not adopted. | No; but-for/causal link required; positional risk not adopted. |
| Does legislative history support adopting positional risk in North Dakota? | Legislative history shows intent to extend coverage beyond mere presence at work. | Legislature did not intend liberal construction; maintain arising out of requirement. | Legislature intended to require causal connection; positional risk rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Sanborn, 536 N.W.2d 678 (N.D. 1995) (horseplay case on course of employment; co-employee immunity)
- Westman v. N.D. Workers' Comp. Bureau, 459 N.W.2d 540 (N.D. 1990) (arising out of and in the course of employment defined)
- Kary v. N.D. Workmen’s Comp. Bureau, 272 N.W.340 (N.D. 1937) (definition of arising out of and in the course of employment)