Darin v. Ill. Workers' Comp. Comm'n
| Decision Date | 18 December 2015 |
| Docket Number | NO. 3-14-0536WC,3-14-0536WC |
| Citation | 2015 IL App (3d) 140536 WC-U |
| Parties | WILLIAM DARIN, Appellant, v. THE ILLINOIS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION et al. (The City of East Peoria, Appellee). |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from Circuit Court of Tazewell County
Honorable Paul Gilfillan, Judge Presiding.
Presiding Justice Holdridge dissented, joined by Justice Stewart.
ORDER¶ 1 Held: The Commission committed no error in finding claimant's alleged work injuries occurred while he was participating in a voluntary recreational program and, pursuant to section 11 of the Workers' Compensation Act (820 ILCS 305/11 (West 2010)), he did not sustain a compensable work-related injury.
¶ 2 Claimant, William Darin, filed an application for adjustment of claim under the Workers' Compensation Act (Act) (820 ILCS 305/1 et seq. (West 2010)), seeking benefits for injuries he allegedly sustained in work-related accidents on September 8, 2010, and September 15, 2010, while he was employed by the employer, the City of East Peoria. After conducting a hearing, an arbitrator found that claimant's injuries were excluded from coverage under section 11 of the Act (820 ILCS 305/11 (West 2010)) because they occurred during the performance of a voluntary recreational activity that the employer did not order or direct claimant to perform. Claimant appealed the arbitrator's decision to the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission (Commission), which unanimously affirmed and adopted the arbitrator's decision. Claimant then sought judicial review of the Commission's decision in the circuit court of Tazewell County, which confirmed the Commission's ruling.
¶ 3 Claimant now appeals, arguing (1) the Commission erred when if found he was injured while engaging in a "recreational program" under section 11 of the Act, (2) the Commission's finding that his participation in the program was voluntary and that he was not "ordered or assigned" to participate in the program was against the manifest weight of the evidence, and (3) his injuries were compensable under the "personal comfort doctrine." We affirm.
¶ 5 The following factual recitation is taken from the evidence presented at the arbitration hearing.
¶ 6 Claimant is the Fire Chief for the City of East Peoria, a position he has held since 2009. At the time of the arbitration hearing, he was 56 years old. Claimant alleges that he suffered work-related injuries to his knees on two separate occasions in September of 2010 while exercising during the "Fall Fitness Challenge," a physical fitness program which the employer offered to its employees free of charge. Claimant testified that he had enrolled in the Fall Fitness Challenge because his supervisor, Gary Densberger, had previously told him to stay fit and to set an example for the firemen under his command by participating in a fitness program. Densberger admitted that he encouraged claimant to stay fit and to set an example by participating in fitness activities or programs, but he denied that he ever directed or encouraged claimantor any other employee to enroll in the Fall Fitness Challenge. The parties dispute whether the exercises that led to the claimant's alleged injuries were part of a "recreational program" barred from coverage under section 11 of the Act and, if so, whether the employer "ordered or assigned" claimant to participate in the Fall Fitness Challenge, thereby rendering claimant's injuries compensable under section 11. The following is a summary of the facts and evidence relevant to the disposition of these issues.
¶ 7 Claimant has been a firefighter since 1972 and has worked for more than 40 years in various positions related to firefighting. On October 21, 2008, the employer offered claimant the position of Fire Chief of the East Peoria Fire Department. The offer did not include any physical fitness requirements or yearly physical examination. Claimant executed the employer's written offer of employment on October 22, 2008.
¶ 8 Claimant introduced into evidence the "Position Description for Fire Chief with the East Peoria Fire Department" (position description), which he was required to sign as part of his employment. According to the position description, the Fire Chief's role was to plan, direct, organize, and administer the operations and staff of the fire department; provide leadership and direction to the organization; and interpret the goals and policies of the employer under the direction of the Commissioner of Public Health & Safety and the City Administrators. Claimant's essential job functions included supervisory and administrative responsibilities. Additionally, he was required to respond to major alarms, natural disasters, and other emergencies that required the insight and authority of the Fire Chief.
¶ 9 The position description listed the physical demands of claimant's position as including, among other things: (1) exerting in excess of 100 pounds of force occasionally, or in excess of 50 pounds frequently, or in excess of 20 pounds of force constantly to move objects;(2) ascending or descending ladders, stairs, scaffolding, ramps, poles and the like using feet and legs and hands and arms; (3) moving about on hands and knees or hands and feet; (4) having the ability to work for sustained periods of exposure to outside atmospheric conditions; and (5) being exposed to conditions such as fumes, noxious odors, dust, mists, gases, and poor ventilation that affect the respiratory system, eyes, or the skin. However, unlike the firefighters under his command, claimant was not required to pass an annual physical. Nor was he required to partake in any physical fitness program or work out, or maintain any specific physical fitness requirements. Claimant testified that the regular firefighters have a physical fitness requirement as part of their contract, but claimant does not.
¶ 10 Claimant testified that, in certain situations, he was required to perform firefighting duties. For example, while at the scene of a three-alarm fire in Morton in March 2012, claimant hauled a fire hose under 100 pounds of pressure as fast as he could for approximately 1,000 feet.
¶ 11 Claimant stated that good cardiovascular conditioning is important to firefighting and that all firefighters are encouraged to exercise. He testified that a firefighter must maintain an adequate level of physical fitness for his own safety and the safety of the citizens he serves. Claimant noted that firefighters use axes, hoses, and other tools at fire scenes, and they are often required to climb ladders while wearing 75-pound protective gear and breathing equipment and while carrying 25-pound axes and other tools. They may be called upon to lift 100 to 300 pounds. Moreover, the more physically fit a firefighter is, the less oxygen he will use and the more productive he will be in fighting fires.
¶ 12 Claimant testified there is an exercise room in all the firehouses that he and all firefighters can use anytime when they are not on a call or performing other duties. Claimantalso testified that he and all firefighters were given a free pass to exercise at the Eastside Centre in East Peoria. The Eastside Centre is a facility owned by the employer and used by the general public. Claimant stated that he is permitted to exercise at the Eastside Centre whenever he wants, separate and aside from the Fall Fitness Challenge. However, he testified that there is no requirement that he work out at the Eastside Centre during the work day or any other time, or at all. According to claimant, the employer placed no restrictions on his exercise plan. Claimant noted that some of the regular firefighters performed morning stretching exercises together at the Eastside Centre (one group went there at 8:00 a.m., and a second group went there at approximately 9:30 a.m.). Claimant could have, but chose not to, participate in these group exercises.
¶ 13 Claimant testified that, at some point, he became aware of a physical fitness program sponsored by the employer called the Fall Fitness Challenge. The Fall Fitness Challenge was a voluntary 12-week fitness and weight management competition which promoted teamwork and healthy lifestyle changes. During the competition, teams of participants worked with a personal trainer and dietician as they competed to earn points through weekly workouts, nutrition education, and weight loss. The program was supervised by East Peoria city employees, not by the fire department. It was available to City of East Peoria employees and any immediate family member aged 16 or older.
¶ 14 Claimant enrolled in the Fall Fitness Challenge in August 2010. He testified that he enrolled in the program because he "thought it would be a better way to show" Densberger, the City of East Peoria's Commissioner of Public Health and Safety, that claimant was "following [Densberger's] direction to stay fit." He also noted that some of his firefighters were enrolled in the program and he "thought it would be good" if they would see him there and "realize that[he] was going to take fitness as an important part of our job," as Densberger was "strongly pushing."
¶ 15 When he enrolled in the Fall Fitness Challenge, claimant signed a registration form, a health history questionnaire, and a liability waiver. On the registration form, claimant indicated that his participation in the fitness program was voluntary. He also indicated that his goals were to lose weight, get in better shape, and reduce inches from his waist. In his health history questionnaire, claimant indicated that he had prior problems with his neck and low back and that he may have...
To continue reading
Request your trial