State v. Morin, 2012 ND 75

Fetzer suffered a fall on her employer’s premises during work hours, resulting in a fractured left hip and wrist.
She filed for workers’ compensation, which WSI denied, concluding the injury occurred in the course of but did not arise out of employment.
A stipulation of facts stated the fall occurred on a level floor with no obstructions and was unexplained, not attributable to Fetzer personally.
An ALJ affirmed the denial, holding an unexplained fall creates a proof problem for causation and citing the need for a causal connection to employment.
The district court and the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting the positional risk doctrine as incompatible with statute.
The court concluded Fetzer failed to prove a causal connection between her fall and employment, so benefits were not payable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether unexplained falls are compensable under ‘arising out of’ employment	Fetzer argues positional risk applies, making the fall compensable.	WSI and the ALJ require a causal connection beyond mere being at work; no positional-risk liability.	Unexplained fall not compensable without causal link to employment.
Whether the positional risk doctrine should be adopted in North Dakota	Positional risk should assign costs to employer for neutral risks in on-the-job falls.	Adopting positional risk changes ND law; legislative responsibility to adopt such doctrine.	Positional risk doctrine rejected; inconsistent with ND statute requiring causation.
Whether the statutory requirement to prove ‘arising out of’ employment was misapplied	The injury would not have occurred but for employment; thus it arises out of employment.	But-for logic is not sufficient; must show causal connection between injury and employment.	But-for reasoning not adopted; claimant must prove causation to employment.

Mitchell v. Sanborn, 536 N.W.2d 678 (N.D. 1995) (horseplay not a substantial deviation; course-of-employment test applied)
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; earlier interpretation)
Choukalos v. N.D. Workers’ Comp. Bureau, 427 N.W.2d 344 (N.D. 1988) (defines ‘arising out of’ as causation-related to employment)
Bergum v. N.D. Workforce Safety & Ins., 2009 ND 52 (N.D. 2009) (reiterates need for medical causal nexus)
Olson v. Workforce Safety & Ins., 2008 ND 59 (N.D. 2008) (limits liberal construction of WSI Act; emphasizes causation)
Ash v. Traynor, 2000 ND 75 (N.D. 2000) (remedial interpretation of the Act; aim to extend relief)
Wheeler v. Gardner, 2006 ND 24 (N.D. 2006) (statutory interpretation presumes entire statute is effective)
Kary v. N.D. Workmen’s Comp. Bureau, 272 N.W.340 (N.D. 1937) (historical articulation of ‘arising out of and’ concept)