In the case of Adcock vs. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission the Arbitrator found in favor of the claimant.  The Commission reversed the Arbitrator and found in favor of the employer.  The Appellate Court reversed the Commission and reinstated the Arbitrator’s decision.  

The Appellate Court did an excellent job of explaining “arising out of.”  The Appellate Court noted that for an injury to be compensable in the State of Illinois the injury must “arise out of the Claimant’s employment.”  There are three types of risk to which claimant’s may be exposed:  1.  risks that are distinctly associated with the employment: 2. risks that are personal to the employee, such as idiopathic falls and 3. Neutral risks that do not have any particular employment or personal characteristics.  The court went on to state with respect to the third category, injuries resulting from a neutral risk generally do not arise out of the employment and are compensable under the Act only when the employee was exposed to the risk to a degree greater than the general public. The increased risk may be either qualitative (i.e. when some aspect of the employment contributes to the risk) while quantitative (such as when the employee is exposed to the risk more frequently than members of the general public by virtue of his employment.)  

In this case the claimant was injured while turning in his chair which is an activity of everyday life.  There is no evidence that the injury is caused by a risk person to the employee such as an idiopathic fall.  The court went on to state the risk of injury that the claimant confronted was not distinctly associated with the claimant’s employment; rather, is a mutual risk of everyday life faced by members of the general public.  Thus the court stated the claimant’s injury is compensable only if the claimant was exposed to this risk to a greater degree than the general public.  The court went on to state that the employee made that showing here.  The claimant’s work duties required him to weld rods during the work day.  To perform this activity the claimant had to move and turn his chair repeatedly.  The claimant testified that his job required non-stop movement in the chair, included swiveling.  Moreover the claimant performs job duties that are time constraints.  Thus under a neutral risk analysist the claimant’s injury arose out of his employment because he was exposed to a risk inherence in an everyday activity to a greater degree than the general public by virtue of his employment.  The claimant’s job required him to turn in a chair more frequently than members of the general public while under time constraints, which increase the risk of injury both quantitatively and qualitatively.

The claimant worked as a welder.  In order to accommodate a non-work related condition of his right knee, the claimant performed his duty while seated.  He used his left leg to turn his stool in an attempt to turn to his right in order to perform a welding task.  He was not pushing the stool but instead he rotated his left knee inward and turned his body to weld.  When he did so his left knee popped.  The MRI showed a medial meniscus tear.  His treating doctor opined that the twisting and turning caused the injury to the claimant’s left knee which resulted in the tear of the medical and lateral meniscus.