New Hampshire: Court Says Board Used Wrong Standard in Judging Unexplained Fall Case

Finding that the New Hampshire Compensation Appeals Board (CAB) had erred in its application of the so-called “increased risk” test in an unexplained fall case before it, a state appellate court reversed and remanded the dispute in order that further findings of fact could be made. The claimant, an elementary school speech assistant, sustained injuries in a fall on an unobstructed level floor. According to the CAB, the claimant failed to prove either that a defect in the floor surface or door mat posed an actual risk that caused her fall, or that her unexplained fall was a neutral risk that met the increased risk test under Appeal of Margeson, 162 N.H. 273, 27 A.3d 663 (2011). The appellate court said that, even under Margeson, the claimant could recover if she could show that she was required to walk more frequently than a member of the general public. Since the CAB had made no findings on the issue, the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).

LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.

See Appeal of Doody, No 2019-0115, 2020 N.H. LEXIS 12 (Jan. 31, 2020)

See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 7.04.

Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law

For a more detailed discussion of the case, see

Sign up for the free LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation enewsletter at www.lexisnexis.com/wcnews.