the proper frame of reference for determining whether an injury is “accidental” under the Act, we hold that the accidental nature of an injury must be determined from the perspective of the injured worker. Accord Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Dep’t of Indus., Labor & Human Relations, 62 Wis.2d 370, 215 N.W.2d 373, 376 (1974) (noting that to “determin[e] whether there has been an accident [for the purposes of the Act, the court] must look from the perspective of the injured person”); see also Konrady v. U.S. Airways, Inc., 165 N.C.App. 620, 599 S.E.2d 593, 596 (2004) (noting that “[t]o be an accident, the incident must have been for the employee an unlooked for and untoward event.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Pee v. AVM, Inc., 352 S.C. 167, 573 S.E.2d 785, 787 (2002) (<HOLDING>). In other words, if a worker does not expect
recognizing that a workers compensation insurer is responsible for covering any injury caused by the treatment of an industrial injury holding that if an injury is unexpected from the workers point of view it qualifies as an injury by accident holding that an antitrust injury is an injury that is attributable to an anticompetitive aspect of the practice under scrutiny 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 holding that noncompetitors injury was an antitrust injury as it was inextricably intertwined with the injury the conspirators sought to inflict