David Evelsizer v. Menard Correctional Center, 13 IWCC 461

Petitioner was a correctional lieutenant at Menard Correctional Center. He filed an Application for Adjustment of Claim alleging an injury to his left knee as a result of an injury on February 18, 2012. The case proceeded to a 19(b) hearing before an Arbitrator at the Collinsville docket on July 27, 2012.

Respondent disputed that Petitioner sustained an accident within the meaning of the Act. Petitioner testified that on February 18, 2012, he was walking up three flights of stairs to the catwalk to change out the catwalk officers. He testified that he was hurrying up the stairs, not running, and that he was fiddling with the 50 or 60 keys no his key ring in his hand to open. Petitioner testified that while he was walking up those stairs he was searching for the right key on his key ring to open the grille, and that when he got to the next to the last step at the third flight of stairs, right as he was making a 90 degree turn around the corner to the right, he had his weight on his left leg, and as he went up the step his left knee popped. Respondent offered into evidence seven separate documents which failed to confirm the Petitioner’s testimony that he was hurrying up the stairs, fidgeting with his keys, and making a 90 degree turn off the last step with all his weight on his left foot when he sustained his left knee injury.

The Arbitrator found that Petitioner sustained an accidental injury which arose out of and in the course of his employment with the Respondent and that Petitioner’s condition of ill-being to his left knee was causally related to the accident. Petitioner was awarded 1 3/7 weeks of temporary total disability benefits and $4,353.50 in medical expenses, In addition, Respondent was ordered to authorize and pay for left knee surgery recommended by the Petitioner’s treating physician.

Respondent appealed the 19(b) Arbitration Decision to the Commission. The Commission reversed the 19(b) Decision of the Arbitrator finding that the record as a whole did not support a finding of accidental injuries arising out of and in the course of Petitioner’s employment. The Commission found that the record reflected that Petitioner’s injuries were sustained as a result of a neutral risk of injury, and that he was not exposed to a risk of injury to a greater extent that the general public.