Court of Appeals Makes Clear That the Doctrine of Unexplained Accident Still Exists in Virginia

The Court of Appeals delivered an early Christmas present to employers in Virginia on December 17, 2024 making clear that the doctrine of “unexplained accident” remains alive in Virginia. The opinion is Loudoun County Public Schools v. Claudia Santi, Record No.: 1298-23-4 (December 17, 2024).

This case has a long procedural history. Claimant was injured in a workplace fall in early 2020. She filed a Claim for Benefits with the Commission, which was denied. She then requested a hearing, where the claim was again denied by a Deputy Commissioner. Claimant requested review by the Full Commission. On review, the Full Commission reversed and remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner. After further proceedings, the Commission ultimately entered a final Order in favor of claimant.

Claimant, an instructional teaching assistant, testified that she slipped while walking down a hallway and that she was propelled to the end of the hall estimated at 20 feet, striking a window, resulting in injuries. Claimant testified that the floor was slippery and felt like wax. Evidence was also presented that there were two water fountains in this hallway. She did not see anything wet. She did not see anything dropped on the floor. She added, “I didn’t really look.” She reiterated, “I definitely felt like, like, wax, I keep going back to wax, like, um, you know, because I wasn’t able to stop.” The employer presented evidence at the hearing from the head custodian that the floor had last been waxed eight or nine months before the accident.

The Full Commission in a split Opinion entered March 1, 2023, written by Commissioner Marshall awarded benefits in this case. Commissioner Newman concurred and Commissioner Rapaport dissented.

Commissioner Marshall indicated in his Opinion that:

Based on the greater weight of the evidence, we infer the claimant slipped on an unknown substance on the floor of the hallway. A condition of her employment caused her to slip and fall. Her injury arose out of her employment.

Commissioner Newman in his concurring Opinion wrote

The severity of the claimant’s injuries barred her returning to the scene of the slip to confirm and identify the foreign substance that precipitated her fall. Moreover, if anyone on behalf of the employer conducted such an exam, they aren’t talking.

Commissioner Newman went on to also note in his concurring Opinion as follows:

There is no mystery how the claimant slipped at one spot and came to rest at another. Not every fall ends with the victim landing where they slipped and it didn’t happen here. The claimant lost her balance when her right foot slipped in a slick spot on the floor. What transpired thereafter was a direct consequence of humanity’s evolution from four legs to two, from a horizontal posture to vertical. The claimant’s forward motion and frantic efforts to right herself carried her down the hall and into the window and where she came to rest on the ground. That’s what she described and that’s what happened. There exists no other explanation and this case lends itself to no mystery. For these reasons, I support the reversal of the Opinion below and remand to address any remaining defenses and issues.

Commissioner Rapaport in his dissent noted that the employer presented evidence through the head custodian that there had been no complaints of the floor being slippery or slick and that there were no defects in either the floor or the water fountains on the hall where the fall occurred. Commissioner Rapaport went on to note cogently that

“There is simply no explanation, plausible otherwise, to explain the accident as the claimant alleges occurred.” Commissioner Rapaport in his dissent also very appropriately noted that “The majority does not explain what inference they are making to form their basis for causation. It appears the inference is that claimant slipped on some unknown work-related condition, which then explicably transported her 15 to 20 feet down the hallway.”

The Court of Appeals in reversing the Full Commission held that this case was similar to Central State Hospital v. Wiggers, 230 Va. 157 (1985). The Wiggers case reached the Supreme Court of Virginia. In Wiggers, the claimant, like the claimant in the instant case, presumed that her slip and fall was due to previously applied wax to the floor. The Supreme Court in Wiggers reversed the Full Commission, “[f]inding no evidence in the record to establish a causal connection between the claimant’s work environment and her injury,” observing that “[t]he claimant had the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, and not merely by conjecture or speculation, that she suffered an injury by accident which arose out of and in the course of her employment.” Id. at 158-60.

The Court of Appeals in reversing the Full Commission in the instant case noted that claimant did not present any evidence that wax, or any other substance, was actually present on the floor at the time of her fall. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals observed that the employer presented evidence through their head custodian that the floor had been buffed eight or nine months before her accident. The Court of Appeals also took issue with the Full Commission’s suggestion that the claimant slipped on water or liquid. The Court of Appeals observed that “[t]his conclusion ignored Santi’s own testimony that the floor felt like wax when she slipped and that she did not detect any water or any other liquid present at that time.”

The Court of Appeals in this December 17, 2024 decision made it abundantly clear that “[t]he burden of supplying evidence from which the inference can be legitimately drawn that the injury arose out of and in the course of the employment, rests upon the claimant, and the Commission cannot shift that burden to the employer.”

This is a very important decision in that it makes clear that an unexplained accident remains non-compensable in Virginia; that cases should not be awarded based upon conjecture; and that it is the claimant’s burden and not the employer’s burden to prove an actual defect which causes a slip and fall by a preponderance of the evidence.

This tip is offered to Virginia adjusters: If a claimant contends that he/she slipped on a substance, investigation should be made through employer witnesses whether there is any evidence of such substance. If there is no evidence of such substance, the claim should be denied. Furthermore, the adjuster should attempt to secure acknowledgement from the claimant that they are merely engaged in conjecture as to whether there was any actual substance on the floor. If a claimant acknowledges this fact, the claim should also be denied.

Should you have any questions about the issues discussed here or other legal issues, please do not hesitate to contact the lawyers at Ford Richardson.

Ford Richardson is a full-service law firm with headquarters located in Richmond’s financial district and satellite offices in Roanoke, Fairfax and Virginia Beach and Washington, D.C..

Our commitment to our clients is simple: offer top-tier clear legal solutions that allow our clients to excel in their business.

We are privileged to give back to our community and believe it is our responsibility to do so. Our attorneys and support staff serve as leaders and volunteers to a wide array of civic and charitable organizations.

Posted In: E-Blast