Colorado’s second-highest court last week rejected an attempt by King Soopers to sidestep its obligation to compensate a worker for his injures, as dictated by the state Supreme Court.

In August 2021, assistant manager Michael Waters was moving pallets of material at a King Soopers store when his leg gave out and he fell. Waters underwent surgery and was able to return to work three months later. Prior to his leg injury, Waters had no physical problems that would have caused it, nor did the environment of the grocery store contribute to his fall.

Instead, Administrative Law Judge Steven R. Kabler determined the cause of Waters’ injury was “unexplained.” Nonetheless, he decided Waters was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits under a nearly decade-old ruling of the Supreme Court.

Case: King Soopers Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office

Decided: August 3, 2023

Jurisdiction: Industrial Claim Appeals Office

Ruling: 3-0

Judges: David J. Richman (author)

Neeti V. Pawar

Karl L. Schock

Background: City of Brighton v. Rodriguez (2014)

In 2014, by a 5-2 vote, the Supreme Court decided City of Brighton v. Rodriguez, a workers’ compensation case in which a woman fell down a flight of stairs at work for reasons that were unclear. The Supreme Court explained there are three types of risks to employees:

? Those related to the work itself, such as an industrial explosion

? Those connected to the worker’s existing medical conditions

?  “Neutral risks” that fall outside of the other categories, like a random act of workplace violence

“We hold that an unexplained fall necessarily constitutes a neutral risk,” wrote then-Chief Justice Nancy Rice. Because the employee in City of Brighton could only have fallen down those stairs in the course of her duties, her injuries “arose out of” her employment and were covered under workers’ compensation.

King Soopers appealed the administrative law judge’s decision in Waters’ case, questioning whether his unexplained leg injury could be attributed to his employment. In attempting to circumvent the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the law, the company insisted there was a difference between an “unexplained fall” and an “unexplained injury.” 

In an unexplained fall case, King Soopers contended, the fall causes the injury. An unexplained injury to a worker’s leg, leading to a fall, is not the same under the law.

“The court held that an unexplained fall is compensable,” attorney Steven J. Picardi argued to a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals in June. “Never once in the majority opinion is ‘unexplained injury’ used.”

“I’m having a hard time seeing the daylight between the two,” Judge Neeti V. Pawar responded.

“Is there any difference been an unexplained fall and unexplained injury?” Judge David J. Richman asked Waters’ attorney.

No, responded Stephan J. Marsh, and the Supreme Court’s decision in City of Brighton clearly dictated that Waters’ injury deserved compensation.

“The Colorado Supreme Court could have adopted a different test. They didn’t adopt a different test,” he said. “The Colorado Supreme Court said you’ve satisfied your burden by proving that the circumstances or obligations of your employment put you in the position you were in” at the time of injury.

The panel agreed with him. Any “semantic difference” is irrelevant, wrote Richman in the Aug. 3 opinion, adding that whether Waters experienced an unexplained fall or an unexplained injury, the City of Brighton decision still dictated that an employee injured in the course of his duties – not as the result of an existing personal condition – may receive compensation.

The case is King Soopers Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office et al.