Court Opinion

ID: 9740044
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:26:29.094878+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:15.662071
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE STOUDER, dissenting: I disagree with the result reached by the majority of the court. I believe the decision of the Commission is against the manifest weight of the evidence. I have no quarrel with the rules as recited by my colleagues. It is the application of those rules to the facts of this case which disturbs me. So far as I am concerned, the claimant was performing a normal activity at the time of the incident, and he conducted this activity for many years as a matter of course. The additional activity of sneezing, which the medical evidence indicates triggered the incident, is likewise a normal activity. These activities are no different from those of the general public. Even viewing the medical evidence most favorable to the claimant, the most that can be said is that the incident occurred while the claimant was working. Since the activities were normal, the incident could have occurred at some other time and place without being related to the claimant’s employment activities. There seems to be a tendency to hold a compensable injury occurs if it happens on the employer’s premises. This is not the rule. I do not believe the evidence shows the activities of the claimant exposed him to risks different from those of the general public, and I would reverse the Commission’s result.