Compensability of Slip and Fall Accidents – Where Are We Since The Florida First District Court of Appeals April 5, 2019 Decision in Valcourt – Williams (The Dog Case)

Written by: William T. Goran, Esq.

For over 75 years now worker’s compensation practitioners have grappled with issues concerning compensability of slip and fall accidents that occurred at work and the evidence is unclear as to why the slip and fall occurred, raising questions regarding whether the accident and injury “arises out of” the employment or, in other words, was there “occupational causation.”

On April 5, 2019, the Florida First District Court of Appeal issued a decision in Sedgwick CMS v. Valcourt – Williams, 271 So. 3rd 1133 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).  The case was decided en banc, meaning it was heard by the entire panel of Judges sitting on the First DCA instead of the usual three Judge panel. This is usually reserved for matters of great importance.  In Valcourt, the employee was working from home under an employer approved arrangement and tripped and fell over her dog while in her kitchen getting a cup of coffee. The Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) found the claimant’s accident was compensable and awarded benefits.  The First DCA reversed and determined that the risk of tripping over her dog while reaching for coffee in her kitchen did not “arise out of” the employment.  The Court stated that the question was “… whether the employment — wherever it is — ‘necessarily exposes a claimant to conditions which substantially contribute to the risk of injury.'” The Court further stated that an accident is compensable only if the employment necessarily exposed the claimant to conditions that would substantially contribute to the risk of injury and to which the claimant would not normally be exposed during her non employment life. That is, was there occupational causation.

The Court noted that there had been prior decisions that “overlooked” or “ignored” the statutorily required “arising out” of employment limitation and noted that the Court had not always been consistent in the application of that limitation.  The Court stated that: “If any ambiguity remains, we hope to remove it now: For any injury to be compensable, it must “arise out of” the employment; there must be — as the statute says — occupational causation.”  It appears the Court meant for this decision to be expansive and apply to all slip and fall type cases.  Two of the fourteen judges that heard the case dissented.

Despite the First DCA’s stated intent in Valcourt to remove any remaining ambiguity with these cases, since the decision the JCC’s throughout the state have been inconsistent in the application of the decision, some viewing it expansively and others giving it very limited application.  Below is a brief synopsis of several similar cases that JCC’s have decided that considered the Valcourt decision.

– Santiago v. SBA – Compensability denied for an employee who was walking to her workstation at the beginning of her workday, twisted her ankle and fell based on a finding that there was no evidence the claimant’s injury was caused by a risk derived from her employment – there was nothing employment related about the stumble and could have happened anywhere. (Currently on appeal).

– Soya v. Health First – Compensability denied to an employee who fell while walking through the waiting room at her place of employment and thought her foot may have got caught on the carpet, but she was not sure.  The JCC found that the employment did not contribute to the risk of the fall and the employment did not expose the claimant to conditions that would substantially contribute to the risk of injury to which claimant would not normally be exposed during her non employment life. (Currently on appeal).

– Rogers v. Winn-Dixie Stores – Compensability denied to a claimant who was in the break room and fell and did not know why he fell.  The JCC found there was no evidence of any defect or problem with the floor and no evidence the claimant slipped or tripped or that he was even moving when he fell and the JCC concluded occupational cause had not been demonstrated and could not be demonstrated if the cause of the fall is unexplained or unknown.  (Currently on appeal).

In contrast to those decisions several judges have considered the Valcourt case and found compensable accidents in these types of claims.

– Caba v. Peoplease LLC – The claimant tripped and fell while walking to use the restroom and it was unclear as to what caused the fall, if anything.  The JCC found the accident compensable because the claimant did trip over part of a metal stand, however the JCC also found that even if there was no evidence that the claimant tripped over the metal stand, he still would have found the accident compensable.

– Tola v. Winn-Dixie Stores – The claimant was walking quickly to assist a customer when she fell for no known reason.  The JCC found prior First DCA decisions involving unexplained falls had not been specifically receded from in the Valcourt case and determined that even if Valcourt  has changed the law to require the claimant, even in an idiopathic or unexplained fall case, to demonstrate a condition that would substantially contribute to the risk of injury beyond that which the claimant would normally be exposed to during her non employment life, this claimant demonstrated the risk of the fall occurred because she was quickly walking to assist a customer.

– Galas v. Winn-Dixie Stores – The claimant delivered a box of items to a coworker and turned to return to his work area and his left knee gave way and he fell. The JCC found this was a compensable accident because the claimant was specifically pivoting on his left leg to return to his assigned work area when it happened.  The JCC noted that the Valcourt decision should be limited to its unique set of facts involving being in her kitchen and tripping over her dog.  The JCC noted that if there was no personal or idiopathic condition involved, any exertion connected with the employment and causally connected with the injury as a medical fact is adequate to satisfy the test of causation and therefore compensable.  The JCC also noted that productivity of the claimant’s job required him to move in a manner and at a pace that he would not use in his normal non work life and that this exposed him to increased risk of injury specific to his employment.

As noted, the three JCC cases where compensability was denied have each been appealed.  As such, despite the First DCA’s stated interest in Valcourt – Williams, to remove any ambiguity, inconsistencies remain, and further clarification will be forthcoming.

These slip/trip and fall accidents occur frequently at work.  In the last eight months I have had three slip and fall cases assigned for defense.  Two were accepted as compensable, and one has been denied.  As such, the argument continues.