Workers Compensation benefits for worker with knee injury
The Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission held that a claimant’s knee injury while climbing a ladder constituted a compensable accident. He had to continuously climb a ladder throughout his workday, which subjected him to a greater risk of injury than a member of the general public.
The use of a ladder, alone, does not subject the claimant to a greater risk of harm than that to which the general public is subject. However, if the claimant can show that his employment requires that he has to continuously climb a ladder throughout his workday, then the worker is subject to a greater risk of injury than the general public.
The claimant, a sheet metal apprentice, was climbing a ladder at work when he heard and felt a pop in his right knee. Conflicting evidence existed as to whether the claimant was twisting his knee and holding a drill in his right hand at the time of the incident. He continued to work and went up and down the ladder 30 to 40 times that day during which time he experienced a second pop followed by increased pain and swelling. He was diagnosed with a meniscal tear and underwent surgery. More than 10 years earlier, the claimant underwent surgery on his right knee for a ganglion cycst. He testified to no knee problems after the ganglion surgery until the work injury. In awarding benefits, the arbitrator found that the use of a ladder increased the claimant’s risk over that of a member of the general public. Although affirming the award, the Commission differed with the arbitrator’s basis for finding an accident. The Commission explained that the ladder, alone, did not inherently subject the claimant to a greater risk of harm than that to which the general public is subject. Also, a ladder is not equivalent to a staircase and is thus not likely to be an element in a personal comfort case. The Commission found that the claimant had to continuously climb a ladder throughout his day. Therefore, the number of times the claimant had to climb a ladder was greater than the general public. Accordingly, the claimant’s employment subjected him to a greater risk of injury than a member of the general public.
Furthermore, the Commission found the evidence did not show that the claimant had an idiopathic condition. Although the claimant had a preexisting condition, this condition was limited to a ganglion cyst. Medical evidence established that a ganglion cyst resides above the joint level and does not interfere with the cartilage of the knee. Also, the claimant was not having problems with his knee after the end of his treatment for the cyst in 1993 until the work accident in 2004.
