'Wallyball' Injury at Work Gets Workers' Compensation

A fitness instructor who injured his leg while playing wallyball during his work shift is entitled to workers' compensation benefits, even if the game was not part of his regular work duties, an Illinois appeals court has ruled.

The 1st District Court of Appeals rejected defendant Elmhurst Park District's argument that Sean Murphy was not entitled to benefits because his participation in the game was voluntary, that the game was recreational activity rather than work activity and that the company did not order or assign him to join the game.

"Since claimant's participation in the wallyball game 'clearly benefitted the respondent's business of operating a health facility, and the claimant believed the activity was part of his work duties,' claimant was not engaged in a 'voluntary recreational activity,'" the panel explained.

"Because claimant participated in the game to accommodate respondent's customers, he was not engaged in a 'recreational' activity," it added.

Murphy was injured while playing wallyball in January 2002, according to the opinion. On the day of the accident, a co-worker approached him one hour before the end of his shift and asked him to participate in the game.

Wallyball is similar to volleyball and is played in a racquetball court.

Although Murphy initially declined the invitation, his co-worker persisted that there would not be enough people to play if he did not join the game.

After relenting, Murphy hurt his right leg while playing and was taken to the hospital, where he underwent surgery to repair a fracture.

Murphy argued that although he was not ordered to play the game, he felt it was "part of his job to promote different classes and programs."

His supervisor argued that the fitness department (where Murphy worked) and the racquet sports department that initiated the wallyball game were separate and that Murphy had no duties with respect to that department.

Murphy filed for workers' compensation benefits, and Elmhurst opposed the claim, arguing that exclusions in Section 11 of the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act barred Murphy from recovering for an accidental injury incurred while participating in "voluntary recreational programs" unless he had been ordered or assigned to participate.

The arbitrator found that Section 11 did not apply and held that Murphy was entitled to benefits, and the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission upheld the decision. Elmhurst then appealed to the Cook County Circuit Court, which also affirmed.

Elmhurst turned to the state's Appellate Court, which agreed with the lower court that Murphy had not been engaged in a "recreational" activity when he was injured. The injury arose from and during the course of his employment such that there was a causal connection between his job and the injury, the panel held.

"Because 'recreation' is inherent in Murphy's job, almost any activity in which he takes part could be considered 'recreational,'" the court said. However, in this case, Murphy's reasons for participating in the wallyball game were not for his own "diversion," but for his employer's benefit, the panel emphasized.

To comment, ask questions or contribute articles, contact West.Andrews.Editor@ThomsonReuters.com.

Elmhurst is represented by Nyhan, Bambrick, Kinzie & Lowry in Chicago.Counsel for the Workers' Compensation Commission is Cronin, Peters & Cook in Chicago.