Employee Rodriguez injured herself at work after falling down a flight of stairs. The stairs were not slippery or obstructed in any way. Rodriguez did not trip, slip or lose her balance, and Rodriguez was not experiencing a headache, neck pain, dizziness, or vision problems. However, after the fall, when she was taken to the hospital, four un-ruptured aneurysms were discovered on the right side of her brain. The employer maintained that he injury was not compensable because it did not arise out of the employment, and that Rodriguez’ fall was caused either by her aneurysms, or the fall was unexplained. The ALJ found that the aneurysms were not the cause of the fall. The court must decide whether injuries from an unexplained fall in the workplace arose out of employment, and in making that decision, the choice of risk test was key. 

1. What is the legal issue in this case? What did the court decide?

2. What is the distinction between “employment,” “personal,” and “neutral” risks? Why does the court say that this case involves the latter category?

3. What is the “but-for” or “positional risk” test? How does the court apply it to the facts of this case? Would the outcome have been the same if the court had used a “peculiar risk” test? An “increased risk” text? An “actual risk” test? (See the text for explanations of these.) Why or why not?

4. Evaluate the judge’s argument in the dissenting opinion. Is it persuasive? Why or why not?

5. In your view, should employees be eligible for workers’ compensation in cases of “idiopathic” or unexplained falls? Why or why not?