2020 IL 124848
Ill.2020Background
- Kevin McAllister, a sous‑chef at North Pond, kneeled in the restaurant walk‑in cooler on Aug. 7, 2014 to help locate a misplaced pan of carrots; as he stood up his right knee "popped" and locked, later diagnosed as a retear of the medial meniscus requiring surgery.
- McAllister had a prior compensable right‑knee injury in 2013 but had returned to full duties; he paid for the 2014 surgery and some therapy out‑of‑pocket and returned to work a month later.
- An arbitrator found the injury arose out of and in the course of employment and awarded TTD, PPD, medical expenses, penalties, and attorney fees.
- The Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission (majority) reversed, classifying the injury as a neutral risk (an ordinary bodily movement) not unique to employment; the Cook County circuit court and the Appellate Court affirmed.
- The Illinois Supreme Court granted leave, concluded the injury arose out of employment because McAllister was performing an act his employer might reasonably expect (arranging the cooler / assisting a coworker), reversed the Commission and lower courts, and remanded with directions to reinstate the arbitration award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McAllister's knee injury "arose out of" his employment | McAllister: kneeling/standing in the cooler to locate misplaced food was an act employer could reasonably expect; injury is causally connected to employment | Employer: standing up from a kneel is a neutral/common bodily movement, not employment‑related risk | Held: Injury arose out of employment—McAllister was performing acts incident to his duties and assisting a coworker |
| Proper legal test when injury results from common bodily movements | McAllister: Caterpillar Tractor test applies—if act is one the employee might reasonably be expected to perform, it is compensable | Employer & some lower judges: require additional neutral‑risk proof showing greater exposure than general public (Adcock approach) | Held: Caterpillar Tractor governs; no extra requirement that common movements be shown to be more frequent/qualitatively different than for the public; Adcock to the contrary is overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 129 Ill. 2d 52 (Ill. 1989) (establishes test whether acts at time of injury are those employee might reasonably be expected to perform)
- Sisbro, Inc. v. Industrial Comm’n, 207 Ill. 2d 193 (Ill. 2003) (explains dual requirement that injury arise out of and occur in the course of employment)
- Orsini v. Industrial Comm’n, 117 Ill. 2d 38 (Ill. 1987) (undisputed facts permitting multiple inferences present factual questions for the Commission)
- Brady v. Louis Ruffolo & Sons Construction Co., 143 Ill. 2d 542 (Ill. 1991) (discusses limits of positional‑risk doctrine and standard for review)
- Interstate Scaffolding, Inc. v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, 236 Ill. 2d 132 (Ill. 2010) (Act is remedial and to be liberally construed)
- Peel v. Industrial Comm’n, 66 Ill. 2d 257 (Ill. 1977) (assisting employer‑related activity is incidental to employment and compensable)