Did Restaurant Manager Cook up Claim that Floor Injured his Foot?

What Do You Think?

An employee can have a compensable claim when he was injured doing an ordinary activity at work that is not really job-related–such as walking. But he'll generally have to show that he faced an increased risk of injury at work. 

In one recent case, the general manager of a restaurant was walking toward a patio door at work on May 31, 2024, to let in another employee. He felt a "pop" in his right foot, followed by intense pain. 

The employer’s June accident report and the claimant’s accident report indicated that he did not know what caused the accident, that he did not slip or fall, and that nothing on the floor caused his injury. Witness statements, including the statement of the person he let in the door, were consistent with that description.

After the administrator denied his workers’ compensation claim, the claimant said his injury was caused when he stepped on an uneven part of the floor, where the floor met the carpet, and his right foot turned just enough that it caused a "pop." He submitted emails that included photos and descriptions of the requested repairs as evidence that his employer knew about the problem in April.

Ultimately, the workers’ compensation board denied the claim, finding it wasn’t work-related.

An injury involving a neutral risk (a force or hazard that is neither distinctly personal to the employee nor directly related to the specific job duties) is only compensable if the employee faced an increased quantity of risk. 

Was the claimant’s foot fracture compensable?

A. No. He didn’t mention the damaged floor when he filed his claim.

B. Yes. The damaged floor increased his risk of being injured.

If you selected A, you agreed with the court in Wolfe v. BBL Hospitality, LLC, No. 25-ICA-173 (W. Va. Ct. App. 10/24/25), which affirmed the board’s decision.

Looking for the full text of this case? Cruise over to Simply Research

The court pointed out that the manager didn’t establish that he faced an increased risk because of his employment simply because he had to walk. The claimant’s inconsistent descriptions of what happened made him less credible, according to the board. Moreover, it was telling that he did not mention the damaged floor at first.

“The Board emphasized that [the claimant] did not allege that uneven flooring caused his injury until his claim was rejected,” the court said

It affirmed the board’s decision denying the claim.

Share This Article: