Workplace Falls: 2019 Statute Can Be a Stumbling Block for Recovery of Workers’ Compensation Benefits

Despite the best precautions, injuries from workplace falls are bound to happen. Determining what injuries are compensable under the workers’ compensation law can be complicated and often hinges upon the circumstances of the fall. A proper analysis begins with determining whether the fall at work is explained, unexplained, or idiopathic, and whether it occurred on a level surface. 

For idiopathic or unexplained falls on a level surface, Iowa Code §85.61(8)(c) (2024) provides:

"Personal injuries due to idiopathic or unexplained falls from a level surface onto the same level surface do not arise out of and in the course of employment and are not compensable under this chapter."

Since its enactment in 2019, a handful of agency cases reveal the agency has closely adhered to the letter of this newer law. 

In Nshimirimana v. Post Holdings, File No. 21004483.01 (Arb. Dec’n June 6, 2023), the worker fell and struck her head on the floor. Defendants offered videos showing the worker dropping backwards to the ground. Immediately prior to the fall, the worker’s legs and feet did not move; she was standing still when she fell backward. She alleged the floor was slippery due to ice on the floor, although it was not clear from the photos and videos whether ice was present. The deputy found the worker did not fall due to ice and did not slip, and as such, the fall was unexplained, and fell within §85.61(8)(c) as a non-compensable injury.

Richie Williams v. Archer Daniels Midland, File No. 20011866.01 (Arb. Dec’n June 28, 2023), involved a worker who fell on the floor while looking at his cell phone and missed a bench while attempting to sit down. He was off the clock at the time, but remained in the locker room on the business premises. The deputy found this was an unexplained fall from a level floor onto the same level floor, and thus was not compensable under §85.61(8)(c).  

In Weiland v. Downtown Eagle, Inc. File No.21700391.01 (Arb. Dec’n July 5, 2023), aff’d, (Appeal Dec’n Feb. 16, 2024), a worker with a history of a total knee replacement experienced a sudden onset of knee pain while walking down the aisle of the grocery store where he worked. Just prior, he had been kneeling on the floor while working with some products, but did not notice the pain in his knee until he had walked 30-40 feet down the aisle. He did not trip or fall, but felt radiating pain. The employer attempted to argue that §85.61(8)(c) applies to unexplained injuries on level surfaces. This was rejected by the deputy who found §85.61(8)(c) applies only to unexplained falls on level surfaces, and thus, did not apply to this injury. 

Murphy v. Ottumwa Regional Health, File No. 21006375.01 (Arb. Dec’n April 28, 2023), aff’d, (Appeal Dec’n October 16, 2023), concerned an employee who was found by a co-worker on the floor of her work area in blood and vomit. The employee testified she got up from her desk to get printed labels, but did not recall what happened afterwards. When she returned home from the hospital, she eventually looked in her bag that contained her belongings from her hospital stay. Inside she found the tennis shoes she wore the day she fell and discovered a paperclip stuck to the bottom of one shoe. She initially reported she did not believe there was anything on the floor that caused her to fall, but later testified she must have slipped on the paperclip. Her physicians could not attribute her fall to any condition other than unexplained syncope. The Commissioner affirmed the deputy’s decision awarding nothing here, holding §85.61(8)(c) applied. 

For explained/unexplained or idiopathic falls that do not meet the specific criteria of §85.61(8)(c) (e.g., did not occur on a level surface), compensability is analyzed under the actual risk or increased risk doctrine, respectively.  Bluml v. Dee Jay’s Inc., 920 N.W.2d 82, 91-92 (Iowa 2018); Lakeside Casino v. Blue, 743 N.W.2d 169, 177-178 (Iowa 2007).

Applicable to explained and unexplained falls, the actual risk rule requires proof the employment subjected the worker to the actual risk that caused the injury.  Lakeside Casino, 743 N.W.2d at 176 (unexplained stumble on stairs); see also, Lapcheske v. Polk County, File No. 5055505 (Appeal Dec’n Nov. 6, 2019). However, a greater burden of proof is required for falls due to idiopathic causes (not unexplained). Bluml, 920 N.W.2d at 91-92.  Idiopathic falls are governed by the increased risk doctrine, which requires a factual determination of whether the employment subjected the worker to an increased risk of injury. Id.; Koehler Elec. v. Wills, 608 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2000) (compensable fall from a ladder due to alcohol withdrawal). 

We may continue to see more guidance from the agency and courts regarding the application of §85.61(8)(c) and other doctrines, but as revealed in the case law, the facts can be determinative, highlighting the importance of early and complete investigations of workplace falls. This may include exploring video footage, eye witnesses, the condition of the surface of the fall, personal conditions of the worker, any objects struck during the fall, and taking photos.  

Please contact the Nyemaster Work Comp Team, if you have questions about a workplace fall.