Assaulted driver’s benefits awarded by Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission
The Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission reversed the arbitrator’s decision denying benefits find that the claimant’s injuries sustained in an assault during her workday arose out of and in the course of her employment. The evidence established that the claimant was in fact at a greater risk due to the nature of the job and a prior incident.
Where the nature of an employee’s job places her on the street for the most of the day, and she has already been involved in an incident with a group of misbehaving teenage boys, then the employee’s risk of another incident with the boys, possibly even resulting in their assaulting her, is greater than that faced by the general public. Under such circumstances, the employee’s injuries would arise out of her employment.
The claimant worked as a delivery truck driver, selling ice cream and frozen foods to households. On the date of the accident, she was rearranging products in the freezer in order to reach some items in the back for a client when a group of teenage boys approached her truck. She previously had trouble with the boys when they tried to steal from her and she threatened to call the police. They slammed the freezer door on her head and pulled her off the side of the truck. She hit the pavement on her left side. The teenagers then left. She suffered a severe headache, memory loss, injuries on her left side, and post traumatic stress syndrome. She worked for only two days after the incident occurred. The arbitrator denied benefits, finding the claimant’s risk was not distinctive to her employment and there was no evidence that the claimant was at an increased risk of injury. However, the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission reversed, reasoning that the evidence and testimony established that the claimant was in fact at greater risk due to the nature of the job and the prior incident. Therefore, her accident arose out of and in the course of her employment.
The Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission explained that the claimant’s job included sales, not just driving a truck. This placed the claimant on the streets all day, thus subjecting her to a greater risk of being hassled or robbed. She was also at an increased risk because of the prior trouble with the group of teenagers. The evidence and testimony established that the claimant was in fact at greater risk due to the nature of the job and the prior incident.
