BCM proves that Petitioner's fall did not arise out of her employment with Respondent.

Roby M. Javoronok tried Stephanie Uzueta v. the City of Bloomington, No. 07 WC 48652, before Arbitrator White in Bloomington, IL. Mr. Javoronok successfully secured a no accident decision by arguing that although Petitioner's accident may have occurred in the course of her employment with Respondent, it nevertheless did not arise out of her employment with Respondent. Further, Mr. Javoronok argued, inter alia, Petitioner was not exposed to a risk greater than the general public.

Petitioner alleges injury on August 31, 2007, when she fell on a sidewalk located on company premises upon her return from a special luncheon she had attended with her supervisor. On the day in question, Petitioner testified she took her normal lunch break from 12:00 to 1:00 p.m. and went to a lunch with her supervisor, at her supervisor's suggestion, from 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. Petitioner and the supervisor were the only persons at the lunch. Petitioner was paid by the Respondent for her time spent at the lunch, and the lunch itself was paid for by the supervisor. Both office and personal matters were discussed at lunch.

As petitioner was returning from the lunch, she fell. Petitioner testified she fell about three feet from the back door, which was not a public entrance. Entrance could only be gained by using a key which was restricted to employees. Petitioner testified she uses the same entrance every day several times each day to enter and exit the building, as did the other members of the office staff.

Petitioner's supervisor (although retired at the time of Arbitration) testified that the back door was not a public entrance; however, the public could gain entry through the door with access from an employee, or could use the door as an exit from the building.

Neither Petitioner nor her supervisor knew the cause of Petitioner's fall. The Petitioner speculated that her sandal (also described as flip-flops) either caught the edge of the sidewalk or one of the sprinklers located by the sidewalk. The emergency room records indicate the sidewalk was uneven. Petitioner testified that by "uneven" she was referring to the point the grass meets the sidewalk. Petitioner introduced photographs of the accident scene.

The Arbitrator found the pictures provided by Petitioner did not show a difference in level of between the grass and the sidewalk at all, certainly not one so great as to create a risk to Petitioner greater than that to which the general public is exposed. Additionally, the Arbitrator found the pictures did not show a sprinkler head close enough to the sidewalk to account for uncertainty about whether the sandal, the difference between the grass and the sidewalk, or the sprinkler head could account for the fall. Further, the only sprinkler head located within three feet of the door was flush to the wall of the building on the opposite side of the door. The Arbitrator also noted the building was new and the sidewalk was smooth and level.

The supervisor testified that following the fall, Petitioner said, "These crazy flip flops, I'm not going to wear them again." She further testified Petitioner made no mention of stepping on anything. The supervisor was walking side by side with the petitioner at the time of the fall. Petitioner did not rebut the supervisor's testimony.