Written by Andrew Willis, Esq.
Edited by Rachel Riordan, Esq.
Mats are such a common part of daily and office life that you probably don’t think much about them. We have doormats in front of our houses and you’ve probably seen long, rubber mats in restaurant kitchens that protect against slips and falls, to name just two common examples. Unsurprisingly, tripping injuries involving mats come up all the time in workers’ compensation law. Even though these injuries occur regularly, the law does not offer a clear test for when an injury involving a mat is compensable. This article discusses the legal factors that the Commission will consider to decide when a fall is compensable. Hopefully it will provide guidance on questions to ask during recorded statements.
The Law
A basic legal inquiry for determining compensability in Virginia is whether there is a “causal connection” between an injury and the “conditions under which the employer requires the work to be done.” Combs v. Va. Elec. & Power Co., 259 Va. 503 (2000). When the general public is exposed to “similar risks” as those causing the employee’s accident, the accident is not compensable. Id. Based on this test alone, it would seem that many, if not most injuries involving mats would not be compensable since mats are such a common part of daily life. However, the analysis the Commission will apply is highly fact-specific and there seem to be just as many cases where the Commission found that a fall involving a mat was compensable as those finding the injury not compensable.
The Court of Appeals has decided a couple of cases involving thresholds in doorways that are instructive for how to analyze cases involving mats. In Dominion Va. Power v. Pulley, Rec. No. 0866-10-1 (June 7, 2011), the Court of Appeals identified specific factors that the Commission should consider when analyzing whether a claimant’s trip over a low threshold “arose out of” his employment. The factors include whether the claimant had a heightened exposure to a risk of tripping “by reason of her job responsibilities requiring her to take a certain route” or whether “the threshold was defective, requiring an increased degree of attentiveness to negotiate it.” Id.
In Vick v. Hampton Roads Transit, Rec. No. 1467-14-1 (March 24, 2015) the Court of Appeals upheld a denial of benefits when a raised marble threshold in a doorway was held to be ordinary, non-defective and common to many businesses and public buildings. The raised, half-inch threshold only constituted a “slight rise” that was “not sufficiently significant to be considered a defect or a risk of employment.” Additionally, the claimant in that case was familiar with the threshold, having crossed it on other occasions.
Some specific examples of circumstances when falls on mats were held not to be compensable include the facts of Kelley v. Monticello Area Community Action Agency, JCN VA00000748221 (May 31, 2016). In that case, the rug on which the claimant tripped was “not described as defective, and it was lying flat on the floor at the time of the claimant’s accident. No foreign substances were alleged to have contributed to the accident.” Similarly, in Charles v. Weasie’s Kitchen, VWC No. 206-46-05 (Oct. 22, 2002), the claimant “agreed that the rug was flat on the floor…and she never described the rug as being upturned.”
By contrast, in Gulledge v. H.H. Gregg, Inc., JCN VA00000574649 (June 6, 2013), a tripping injury was compensable when the claimant testified that her foot “got stuck up underneath the mat, where it was overlapping” with another mat and she “lost her balance….” Similarly, the accident in Kates v. City of Norfolk, JCN VA00000099174 (Nov. 4, 2010) was compensable when the claimant caught his foot on the “atypical bow of the carpet, and he fell.”
Recorded Statement & Investigation
As with many other kinds of injuries, one important question to ask will be whether there was any kind of defect in the mat that the claimant believes caused the fall. In particular, you should ask whether the mat was curling up, whether it was frayed or worn, and whether it was uneven either because of something underneath it or because it was overlapping with another mat nearby. As a general rule, the more it sounds like there was something unusual or defective about the mat in question, the more likely it is that the accident is compensable.
Another important piece of information for you to know is the thickness or height of the mat. In the Pulley case, the Commission held that a fall involving a 5/8 inch mat was compensable. However, the height will only be one factor and 5/8 of an inch is not a bright line test. That said, the higher a mat comes up off of the floor, the more likely it is to be considered a hazard unique to the employment and the more likely the accident to be considered compensable. Of course, a claimant during a recorded statement is unlikely to know the exact height of the mat, even if he or she gives you a precise answer. This is information you will want to obtain from the employer, preferably by having someone measure with measuring tape immediately after the accident and then preserve the mat to use as demonstrative evidence at the hearing.
Lastly, several of the cases described above show that it will be important to know the location of the mat and why the claimant happened to be in that location. If the claimant was performing a work errand in an unfamiliar area, it is more probable that the accident will be compensable than if the claimant was, for example, on the way to the restroom along a route that he or she took frequently.
The above questions can also guide you with respect to other low-level tripping hazards. A number of the cases discussed above involved thresholds and rugs in addition to mats. While this article contains some general suggestions for reviewing the compensability of work accidents involving mats, each case will be highly fact-dependent. The workers’ compensation attorneys at Kalbaugh, Pfund, & Messersmith, P.C. are happy to answer your questions about how the facts of your case are likely to affect the ultimate outcome.