Illinois workers' injuries is not blocked by Section 11 of the Ilinois Workers' Compensation Act
where recreation is inherent in a claimant's job position, such as a fitness supervisor, and the claimant is injured while participating in a recreational event and while attempting to accommodate the employer's customers, Section 11 of the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act does not bar the claimant's application for workers' compensation benefits.
Case name: Elmhurst Park District v. IWCC (Murphy), 17 ILWCLB 167 (Ill.App.Ct., 12st 2009).
Murphy, a fitness supervisor at a facility operated by the park district, injured his leg while playinng in a game of wallyball at work during his shift. The game was part of the defendant's wallyball league, and the participants were paying customers. Murphy testified that a coworker insisted that Murphy participate in the game, as they would not have enough players without Murphy.
The defendant argued that Section 11 of the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act barred Murphy's injuries because the accident occurred while Murphy was participating in a voluntary recreational program.
The arbitrator disagreed and awarded benefits. The Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission affirmed the decision of the arbitrator and the Circuit Court of Cook County confirmed. The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed, reasoning that Murphy was not engaged in recreational activity as contemplated by Section 11.
The court explained that similar to a professional athlete, recreation is inherent in Murphy's position as a fitness supervisor. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider why Murphy agreed to play wallyball on the date he was injured. The evidence indicated that Murphy did not participate in the wallyball game for his own diversion or to refresh or strengthen his spirits after toil, as the dictionary defines "recreation." Rather, Murphy participated in the game to accommodate the defendant's customers. Under these circumstances, Murphy was not engaged in a recreational activity pursuant to Section 11.
The evidence also supported the Commission's finding that Murphy's participation in the wallyball game was incidental to his employment. Murphy testified that he felt that participating in the wallyball game was part of his job because one of the requirement of his position was to help out with any programs or classes the defendant offered its customers. In light of his written job description, Murphy's belief was reasonable.
