Opinion ID: 2350712
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The substantial factor test requires both actual and proximate cause.

Text: The fact that multiple causes contribute to an injury does not automatically preclude recovery. The substantial factor test requires a claimant to demonstrate that: (1) the disability would not have happened `but for' an injury sustained in the course and scope of employment; and (2) reasonable persons would regard the injury as a cause of the disability and attach responsibility to it. [34] The first element is commonly referred to as cause-in-fact and the second as proximate cause. [35] The cause-in-fact or but-for test only requires a showing that the plaintiff's damages would not have been incurred but for the complained-of conduct, in this case the conditions of Shea's employment. [36] But not every cause results in liability or the award of benefits. Once it has been established that the defendant's conduct has in fact been one of the causes of the plaintiff's injury, there remains the question whether the defendant should be legally responsible for the injury. [37] To satisfy the substantial factor requirement, a claimant must prove that her employment was so important in bringing about the injury that reasonable [persons] would regard it as a cause and attach responsibility to it. [38] We have described this requirement as asking whether the conduct has been so significant and important a cause that the defendant should be legally responsible. [39]