## Facts

- Pauline L. Shoemaker worked for Circle K Store No. 1131; her duties included taking out the trash from her shift.
- On January 14, 1988, after finishing her shift, she gathered her belongings, purchased groceries, and carried the shift trash to a dumpster in the store’s parking lot.
- At the dumpster, she disposed of the trash, turned to pick up her belongings and groceries, and fell three to four feet from the dumpster.
- Shoemaker could not identify any cause for the fall; she was unaware of tripping on anything and testified her ankle “just turned.”
- There was no evidence of a ground defect, an object causing the fall, or an idiopathic condition causing it.
- The parties stipulated medical testimony was unnecessary to establish causation between the fall and the injury.

## Issues

1. Whether an employee’s injuries from an unexplained fall on the employer’s premises, occurring immediately after performing a work duty, “arose out of” employment under A.R.S. § 23-1021(A) when the injury occurred “in the course of” employment.

## Decision

- The Arizona Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals’ decision and reinstated the ALJ’s award finding the claim compensable.
- The Court held the fall was a neutral-risk, unexplained injury occurring in the course of employment at a location the employee was required to be.
- Applying the positional-risk doctrine, the Court concluded that once “in the course of” employment is established for a neutral injury, a presumption arises that the injury also “arose out of” employment.
- The fact that Shoemaker was also handling personal items and groceries did not break the employment connection because her presence at the dumpster at that time resulted from a work duty.

## Legal Principles

- A.R.S. § 23-1021(A) requires both that an injury occur “in the course of” employment (time, place, circumstances) and “arise out of” employment (source of the risk).
- An unexplained fall not shown to be personal to the employee and not traceable to a specific work hazard is treated as a neutral risk.
- For neutral risks, Arizona applies the positional-risk doctrine: if the employee proves the injury occurred in the course of employment, the injury is presumed to arise out of employment because the job placed the employee at the location of harm.
- In unexplained-fall cases involving neutral risk, a claimant need not identify a specific employment hazard or disprove idiopathic causes to satisfy “arising out of.”

## Conclusion

The court held that an unexplained fall on employer premises occurring during work-related activity is compensable as a neutral-risk injury; once the employee establishes the fall occurred in the course of employment, positional risk supplies a presumption that it also arose out of employment, warranting reinstatement of benefits.


Circle K Store No. 1131 v. Indus. Comm’n of Ariz., 165 Ariz. 91, 796 P.2d 893 (1990)