Benefits in unexplained fall case denied

A Tennessee workers compensation judge on Friday denied benefits to a construction worker who suffered a severe head injury, finding he failed to show the injury was primarily caused by his employment. In Saddler v. United Mechanical and Electric Inc., Paul Saddler, an HVAC installer, was found unconscious at a job site in May 2024 and later diagnosed with a subdural hematoma and multiple skull fractures. Medical records indicated he likely fell from about eight feet, but no one witnessed the incident and the employee had no memory of what happened. At the hearing, Mr. Saddler offered no direct evidence explaining why he fell or identifying a workplace hazard that contributed to the injury. The only account came from secondhand statements relayed to a physician, which the court characterized as inadmissible hearsay. A judge with the Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims said that while he clearly suffered a serious injury at work, that alone was "insufficient." To recover benefits, he had to show the injury arose primarily out of employment and that work contributed more than 50% to the condition. The court found the claim instead resembled an "idiopathic" injury -- one with an unexplained cause -- and noted that such injuries are not compensable unless a condition of employment creates an additional hazard. Mr. Saddler failed to identify any such hazard. Because the claim was denied on causation grounds, the court did not address an intoxication defense made by the employer.