No Benefits for Airline Employee’s Unexplained Fall

“Not every workplace injury is recognized under the Virginia Workers Compensation law,” notes National Airport and Dulles Airport accident lawyer Doug Landau.  “In fact, many airport comp claims are denied by the airlines and airports authority under the restrictive laws of Virginia.”

In a case reported in Virginia Lawyers Weekly, an airline employee who fell from the bed of a pickup truck while delivering airplane parts did not win workers’ comp benefits because there was no evidence that his fall arose out of the conditions of his employment, according to the Virginia Court of Appeals. An unexplained fall is not compensable in the absence of showing that the injury “arose out of” the employment. In the Hersl v. United Airlines case, the injured claimant could not remember any details concerning his fall or other activities on the day of the accident.

A coworker’s testimony failed to explain the cause of the fall. Although the coworker observed the accident, he candidly admitted he did not know why claimant fell. His testimony established that claimant was walking toward the tailgate of the pickup truck carrying a package before he fell from the truck, but it failed to suggest any explanation as to the cause of the fall.

The record before the Virginia Workers Compensation Commission failed to establish that claimant fell due to any work-related duties or environmental conditions. Claimant did not present any evidence suggesting that he slipped on a foreign substance in the truck bed or that he tripped over the tailgate of the truck or another package. Likewise, he did not present evidence attributing his fall to the package he was carrying. This claimant’s work environment did not present the same degree of danger as the work environments faced by employees in other cases cited by claimant. Working in the bed of a pickup truck exposes an employee to a lesser height, and carrying one package is less strenuous than pulling sheets of plywood from one story of a construction site to another. Claimant did not present any evidence linking his fall to any particular activity he was performing as a condition of his employment. While claimant fell from a moderate height of three and a half to four feet, his position in the bed of the pickup truck did not present the same degree of risk encountered by the employees in other cases, and defendant did not present testimony describing the details of his fall. Claimant did not establish a “critical link” between the conditions of his workplace and his injuries. The denial of benefits was affirmed.