Assessing Compensability with Ladder Cases Requires Careful Analysis by the Virginia Adjuster

The Full Commission’s Opinion in McCrimmon v. Shirley Contracting Company, JCN VA02000043257 (May 5th, 2026), earlier this month is a reminder that ladder cases are very fact-specific for the Virginia adjuster making a compensability decision.

The claimant’s claim in McCrimmon failed with a finding by the Commission that no injury arising out of the employment was established. The claimant, a fuel truck driver, alleged injury to his left knee while climbing down a ladder that was attached to a front-end loader. The claimant did not identify any defect with the steps. Although he asserted that he was moving quickly, he did not testify that the fast pace was required by his job. The ladder consisted of four or five flat steps. The claimant described that while descending the ladder, he heard a pop in his knee. When asked what caused his knee to pop, the claimant testified he was “just getting down” and that it was caused by the “quick movement to go down the steps”.

The Full Commission affirmed the finding of the Deputy Commissioner that the claimant did not establish a compensable injury arising out of the employment. The Full Commission noted that while claimant described his movement as “quick”, there was no evidence in the record that he was rushing down the ladder for a work-related reason. Furthermore, the claimant identified no added-risk relative to the employment.

Again, these cases tend to be extremely fact-specific. Recorded statements taken in ladder cases are extremely important. This case is a reminder that merely feeling a pop while ascending or descending steps may not be enough.

The Virginia Adjuster conducting a recorded statement in ladder cases should be certain to attempt to establish the following points: the ladder was non-defective; claimant was not rushing, and if they were rushing, there was no job requirement to do so; claimant is not asserting that he/she missed a step; claimant had nothing in his/her hands causing the alleged injury; location was well-lit with no attribution that lighting caused injury.

Posted In: E-Blast