I have reviewed and considered all of the competent and substantial evidence on the whole record. Based on my review of the evidence as well as my consideration of the relevant provisions of the Missouri Workers' Compensation Law, I believe the decision of the administrative law judge should be reversed.
It is undisputed that employee sustained an ankle sprain when her ankle rolled as she descended a step while she was working. At the time of the accident, employee had her hands full with work materials she had to bring to her session. Employee did not slip, trip, or fall. There was nothing on the step that contributed to employee's fall and employee does not allege a defect in the step. In employee's words, "I misstepped and my ankle rolled." Employee admitted the materials she was carrying did not cause the misstep. In her nonemployment life, employee descended stairs, including stairs in her own home leading to her garage and to her basement.
The Commission majority concludes that employee's ankle injury arose out of her employment. I disagree. The Missouri Workers' Compensation Law puts the burden on employee to show that there is a rational connection between the accident, the injury, and the employment. A statutory test for the connection is set forth in §287.020.2.3(2) RSMo:
An injury shall be deemed to arise out of and in the course of the employment only if:
(a) It is reasonably apparent, upon consideration of all the circumstances, that the accident is the prevailing factor in causing the injury; and
(b) It does not come from a hazard or risk unrelated to the employment to which workers would have been equally exposed outside of and unrelated to the employment in normal nonemployment life.
Employee has shown that the accident was the prevailing factor in causing her ankle injury so the first prong of the test is satisfied. Employee failed to prove the second prong of the test. Employee failed to show that her ankle injury did not come from a hazard unrelated to her employment. Stated conversely, employee failed to show that her ankle injury came from a hazard related to her employment. The record reveals that employee is exposed to the risks inherent in descending stairs in both her employment and her nonemployment life.
The administrative law judge found employee was exposed to a unique employment risk because employee had her hands full with work materials she was required to bring to her session. Perhaps there are risks associated with walking down stairs with hands full, but those risks are not relevant to this case because employee testified that the carrying of the materials did not cause this misstep. Since the materials did not cause the misstep, employee's injury did not come from a hazard or risk related to the carrying of materials. I conclude employee's injury did not arise out of her employment.
I would reverse the award of the administrative law judge. For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent from the decision of the majority of the Commission.