Steven Echevarria v. City of Chesapeake, 0105161

Steven Echevarria, a Chesapeake police officer, slipped on a carpeted residential stairway while investigating a possible burglary and injured his left biceps, later requiring surgery.
Officers’ body-camera footage captured the slip; the videos showed stairs in good repair, with a “U-turn” configuration causing steps to be narrower on the inside of the turn, but no obvious defect or foreign substance.
A homeowner on scene told officers (on video) she had slipped on the same stairs earlier that day and urged someone to call a man; she did not testify at the hearing or explain the cause of her fall.
Echevarria admitted he was not hurrying, distracted, or carrying anything, was unaware of any defect, and wore slip-resistant shoes; he testified he stepped on the center of a solid step before slipping.
The deputy commissioner awarded benefits, inferring a stair defect from the homeowner’s statements; the full Workers’ Compensation Commission reversed, finding the homeowner’s remarks too ambiguous and the evidence insufficient to show a defect caused Echevarria’s fall.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding circumstantial evidence did not prove the injury ‘‘arose out of’’ employment and an award would have been speculative.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Echevarria’s slip and injury "arose out of" his employment (i.e., was caused by a work-related hazard)	Homeowner’s on-video statement that she had slipped earlier proved a stair defect existed and the Commission should infer that defect caused Echevarria’s fall.	Body-camera footage and Echevarria’s testimony showed no defect; homeowner’s statement was ambiguous and could indicate many non-defect causes, so causation is speculative.	Court affirmed the Commission: evidence did not establish a stair defect or that any defect caused Echevarria’s fall; award would be based on conjecture.

Bernard v. Carlson Cos.-TGIF, 60 Va. App. 400 (Va. Ct. App. 2012) (tripping on stairs compensable only if steps are unusual or defective).
County of Chesterfield v. Johnson, 237 Va. 180 (Va. 1989) (no compensation if "nothing unusual or wrong with the steps").
PYA/Monarch & Reliance Ins. Co. v. Harris, 22 Va. App. 215 (Va. Ct. App. 1996) (requires a critical link between workplace conditions and injury).
City of Waynesboro v. Griffin, 51 Va. App. 308 (Va. Ct. App. 2008) (circumstantial evidence can support causation if it permits a non-speculative inference).
Marketing Profiles, Inc. v. Hill, 17 Va. App. 431 (Va. Ct. App. 1993) (circumstantial proof may explain an accident when it allows a reasonable inference).
Van Geuder v. Commonwealth, 192 Va. 548 (Va. 1951) (claimant fails if it is equally probable injury resulted from a non-compensable cause).