The Circuit Court of Cook County held that the finding of the Commission - that claimant failed to prove her accidental injuries arose out of her employment - was clearly erroneous, where evidence indicated claimant was hurrying toward the fax machine to perform a work related function on a day when her workload had doubled.

Claimant, a mortgage sales assistant, alleged she was hurrying toward the fax machine at work when the rubberized sole of her right shoe grabbed the carpet, causing her to lurch forward into the filing cabinet. She was diagnosed with w a complete Achilles tendon rupture. Claimant testified that she normally assisted four mortgage counselors. She stated the office was very hectic and she was A rushing around.@ She saw no defect in the carpet or floor.

The arbitrator awarded benefits, finding claimant was exposed to a risk greater than that of the general public. In a decision reported at 9 ILWCLB 1137, the Commission reversed, finding claimant failed to prove she sustained an accident arising out of and in the course of her employment. The Commission determined claimant was exposed to a neutral risk that had no particular employment or personal characteristics.

The Circuit Court of Cook County set aside and remanded the decision of the Commission, holding that the finding of the Commission - that claimant failed to prove her accidental injuries arose out of her employment - was clearly erroneous. The court noted that at the time of the accident, claimant was on her way to fax something work-related. She was performing an act which she was instructed to perform or might reasonable be expected to perform. Because claimant was rushing toward the fax machine carrying material to be faxed, she was exposed to a risk greater than that to which the general public was exposed. Further, because claimant was working for eight mortgage consultants on the day of the accident rather than her regular four consultants, she was doing twice as much work, thereby causing it to be a hectic day. The court noted defendant had not submitted any evidence to refute this evidence. Therefore, the court found claimant's fall was explained, as she was hurrying to the fax machine on a day when her workload doubled.