Ohio Prison Worker’s Claim Hinges on Whether she had an Unexplained Fall 

Grafton, OH (WorkersCompensation.com) – Sometimes people just fall at work and it’s not clear why. The question then becomes what standard to apply to determine whether the resulting injury arose out of employment. 

A case involving a prison case manager who fell for no obvious reason in Vega v. Grafton Correctional Facility, No. 23CA012068 (Ohio Ct. App. 09/23/24), is instructive.  

The case manager was on her way to a copier within the prison offices when, she said, "[her] foot gripped the floor, and [she] lost [her] balance." She fell into a wall, sustaining injuries as a result. There weren’t any defects in the floor itself or any substances on the floor that contributed to her fall. 

She sought workers’ compensation. The prison argued that her injury didn’t arise out of her employment. The court of common pleas ruled for the case manager. It reasoned that: 

By performing her job duties, [she] was working for the benefit of her employer. As such, there is a causal connection between [her] employment and the injury. 

The prison appealed, claiming the court applied the wrong standard. 

The appellate court noted that, to begin with, to determine whether an injury arises out of employment, courts must consider the totality of the circumstances, including: 

1. The proximity of the scene of the accident to the place of employment; 

2. The degree of control the employer had over the scene of the accident; and  

3. The benefit the employer received from the injured employee's presence at the scene of the accident. 

Lord v. Daugherty, 66 Ohio St.2d 441 (1981) 

The court rejected the prison’s argument that the case manager had to show that her injury was caused by a hazard or risk associated with her employment. 

Instead, in this case, the trial court should have considered whether the injury was caused by an unexplained slip or fall, per the Ohio Supreme Court’s opinion in Waller v. Mayfield, 37 Ohio St. 3d 118, 125 (Ohio 1988). If this was a “neutral risk” (neither clearly work-related nor clearly idiopathic), then an inference would arise that the fall is traceable to some ordinary, though unidentified, risk to which the employee was exposed on the employment premises.  

The trial court erred by ruling for the case manager solely based on the three factors outlined in the Lord case. 

“The appropriate analysis, however, was for the trial court to apply the standard set forth in Waller,” the court wrote. 

It reversed and remanded the case to the lower court. 

Share This Article: