also, and primarily, for the disability arising from the injury including the surgery that led to the amputation of her leg. Whether Milledge was entitled to such compensation was fiercely contested before the single-member hearing officer However, determining that Milledge failed to show any causal 244 (Minn.Ct.App.1994) (noting that Minnesota applies the positional' risk doctrine when the general public and the employee are equally subject to the risk that caused the injury); Johnson v. Roundtree, 406 So.2d 810, 810-11 (Miss.1981) (affirming an award of compensation pursuant to the posi tional risk docirine); Mule v. N.J. Mfrs. Ins. Co., 356 N.J.Super. 389, 812 A.2d 1128, 1133 (2003) (expressly adopting positional risk doctrine); Ensley v. Grace, 76 N.M. 691, 417 P.2d 885, 888 (1966) (<HOLDING>); Turner v. B Sew Inn, 18 P.3d 1070, 1076
holding that in determining whether an accident arose out of employment the issue is whether the employees employment brought him in contact with the risk that in fact caused his injuries holding that where the employment of the injured employees was the occasion of the injury the injuries arose out of employment holding that where an employee is fatally injured in an unexplained assault there is a rebuttable presumption that the employees death arose out of the employment holding that an assault that occurred immediately after the employee was discharged was in the course of the employment holding that when an employee suffers an injury from an unexplained fall while the employee is on the job and performing the duties of his employment that injury is eligible for compensation under the workers compensation act