Pamela McBride v. Midwest Estate Buyers, LLC (mem. dec.), 93A02-1612-EX-2920

Pamela McBride worked as an employee at Midwest Jewelers / Estate Buyers and often dressed stylishly for customers, though not required by employer policy.
On March 3, 2015, while walking to greet a customer, the inside zippers of McBride's boots hooked together, she tripped, grabbed a nearby chair that swivelled, and fell, sustaining a right femoral neck fracture requiring hip replacement.
McBride filed an Application for Adjustment of Claim in April 2015 seeking workers’ compensation benefits.
A Single Member of the Indiana Worker’s Compensation Board denied the claim; the full Board affirmed, concluding the injury resulted from a personal risk (her choice of footwear) not arising out of employment.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reviewed whether the injury "arose out of" employment, applying the three-category risk framework (distinctly employment, personal, or intermediate).
The Court concluded the facts were undisputed, found the risk intermediate (neither purely personal nor purely employment-related), and reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether McBride's injury "arose out of" her employment	McBride: wearing stylish footwear was related to job duties (customer-facing retail); thus causal nexus exists	Midwest: injury resulted from a personal choice of boots; employer did not require such attire, so no causal nexus	Court: Injury arose out of employment — risk was intermediate (category three) and compensable

Morris v. Custom Kitchen & Bath, 64 N.E.3d 912 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (deference to Board factual findings; exceptions when evidence undisputed)
Ind. Mich. Power Co. v. Roush, 706 N.E.2d 1110 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) ("out of and in the course of" is generally a factual question for the Board)
Sanchez v. Hamara, 534 N.E.2d 756 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) (undisputed facts leading to single inference convert question to law)
Duvall v. ICI Americas, Inc., 621 N.E.2d 1122 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (review standard for questions of law on appeal)
Pavese v. Cleaning Solutions, 894 N.E.2d 570 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (employee failed to prove causal nexus where medical evidence indicated personal syncopal episode)
Milledge v. Oaks, 784 N.E.2d 926 (Ind. 2003) (three-category framework for risks: employment, personal, intermediate)
Metro. Sch. Dist. of Lawrence Twp. v. Carter, 803 N.E.2d 695 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (tripping is not a personal risk absent preexisting condition)
A Plus Home Health Care, Inc. v. Miecznikowski, 983 N.E.2d 140 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (intermediate risks are compensable under the Act)
Kovatch v. A.M. General, 679 N.E.2d 940 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (increased-risk analysis when employment conditions amplify harm)