Worker Not Entitled to Benefits for Trip Over Untied Shoelaces

Lafon v. Iron Tiger Logistics, No. 2015-CA-11 (Ohio Ct. App. 06/19/15)

Ruling: The Ohio Court of Appeals held that a worker was not entitled to benefits for the injury he sustained when he tripped over his shoelaces while boarding the employer’s shuttle bus.

What it means: In Ohio, an injury arises out of a worker’s employment when there is a causal connection between the injury and the employment.

Summary: A “yard man” for Iron Tiger Logistics was climbing into a company shuttle bus when he tripped on his untied shoelaces and fell forward. His right shoulder was injured. The yard man sought workers’ compensation benefits. The Ohio Court of Appeals held that he was not entitled to benefits.

Iron Tiger conceded that the yard man showed that his injury occurred in the course of his employment because he was boarding the company’s shuttle bus at the time he fell.

The court found that the yard man did not establish that his injury arose out of his employment. He admitted that he fell when he tripped on his untied shoelaces. He also admitted that his fall was not due to any defect in the steps of the shuttle bus. The court explained that while the yard man’s movement of climbing into the shuttle bus was beneficial to Iron Tiger in that he was attempting to put himself in a position to conduct work, Iron Tiger did not have any control over the yard man’s shoelaces being untied and it was the untied shoelaces that caused the fall, not a condition of his employment or work environment. Therefore, the court found an insufficient causal connection between the yard man’s injury and his employment.

Comp Awarded for Death While Traveling in Company Vehicle

Seabright Insurance Co. v. Lopez, No. 14-0272 (Tex. 06/12/15)

Ruling: The Texas Supreme Court held that a foreman’s death occurred in the course and scope of his employment, so his widow was entitled to benefits.

What it means: In Texas, a worker’s injury while traveling to work is compensable if the travel originated in and occurred in furtherance of the employer’s business.

Summary: A civil foreman for Interstate Treating was assigned to work at a site 450 miles from his home. When Interstate assigned the foreman to work at remote job sites, the foreman made his own arrangements to stay in a hotel, and Interstate paid him per diem for his lodging and food expenses. Interstate also provided him with a company vehicle but did not pay the foreman for his travel time. The foreman chose to stay in a motel 40 miles from the job site. While he was driving two other Interstate employees to the job site, he was involved in an automobile accident and was killed. The foreman’s widow sought workers’ compensation death benefits. The Texas Supreme Court awarded death benefits to the widow.

The court concluded that the foreman was acting within the course and scope of his employment when he was injured. Interstate’s business called for employing specialized, nonlocal work crews in constantly changing, remote locations for temporary assignments. The court found the foreman’s travel furthered and originated in Interstate’s business.

The court explained that the foreman’s travel from his temporary housing to the job site and the risk associated with the travel were “dictated” by Interstate’s business model and “enabled” by its provision of the vehicle. The provision of transportation to the work location was an essential part of the foreman’s employment. Also, the foreman’s travel made employment possible and furthered Interstate’s business.

The court explained that course and scope of employment does not include transportation to and from the place of employment unless the transportation is paid for by the employer. Here, the widow established that Interstate paid for the foreman’s travel by providing a vehicle and paying for fuel and insurance.

A dissenting judge opined that the foreman’s death was not compensable because the risk of injury to which he was exposed was the same as any other person traveling on public roads to reach a job site.

Exclusion for Farm, Ranch Laborers Declared Unconstitutional

Rodriguez v. Brand West Dairy, et al., No. 33,104 and 33,675 (N.M. Ct. App. 06/22/15)

Ruling: The New Mexico Court of Appeals held that the worker’ compensation law’s exclusion of farm and ranch laborers from coverage is unconstitutional.

What it means: In New Mexico, farm and ranch laborers should be covered under the workers’ compensation law.

Summary: Two workers suffered work-related injuries while working as farm and ranch laborers. The workers sought workers’ compensation benefits. Their claims were denied under the workers’ compensation law’s exclusion for farm and ranch laborers. The workers asserted that the exclusion was unconstitutional. The New Mexico Court of Appeals held that the exclusion violated the workers’ rights to equal protection.

The workers asserted that they were treated differently than similarly situated individuals. The court agreed, concluding that farm and ranch laborers seeking compensation were similarly situated to other workers who were also seeking compensation. Both groups consisted of workers suffering work-related injuries or disabilities who were in need of indemnity and medical benefits. The court explained that excluding farm and ranch laborers from workers’ compensation coverage denied them benefits that the law was intended to provide. The exclusion also circumvented the policy and philosophy of the law. The court said that “the exclusion tips the scale in favor of employers.”

The court found that the exclusion was not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Under the exclusion, workers whose primary duties are essential to the cultivation of crops are considered farm laborers while workers involved primarily in the processing of the same crops are not. The court said this distinction “leads to absurd results.” In some instances, employees working for the same agricultural employers may not all be covered. The court said it failed to see any real differences between farm and ranch laborers and others workers that would justify the exclusion.

The court was not persuaded by one employer’s argument that simplifying the administration of the workers’ compensation system and protecting the state’s agricultural industry from additional overhead costs justified the arbitrary classification created by the exclusion.

Exclusive Remedy Provision Blocks Suit Alleging Broken Door Latch on Truck

Keller v. Township of Berkeley, et al., No. A-5767-12T3 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 06/22/15, unpublished)

Ruling: In an unpublished decision, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division held that the exclusive remedy provision barred a laborer’s suit against a township.

What it means: In New Jersey, the exclusive remedy provision will not block a suit when the employer engaged in an intentional wrongdoing.

Summary: A laborer for the Township of Berkeley’s sanitation department suffered serious injuries when he fell from a moving garbage truck after the passenger side door sprang open. The laborer claimed that there were many complaints about the truck and that the township had known that the passenger door would open unexpectedly. The township denied that it was aware of any problem with the truck and that an inspection after the accident failed to note any problem with the locking mechanism. The laborer sued. The New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division held that the exclusive remedy provision barred the suit.

The court explained that the workers’ compensation law ordinarily provides the exclusive remedy for injuries sustained by workers in the course of employment but a worker can sue in the case of an intentional wrong. An intentional wrong occurs when an employer possesses a “substantial certainty” that harm will result from an action. The court found that the laborer’s accident did not meet the substantial certainty standard.

The court pointed out that no Occupational Safety and Health Administration violations were issued before or after the accident involving the latch on the passenger door of the truck. The township did not do anything to the door mechanism to make it less safe in an effort to speed up garbage collection. Also, the door was functional to some extent. No evidence showed that there was a prior incident where a worker was injured.

Accident While Traveling to Storage Container Is Compensable

Hamilton v. Alpha Services, LLC, et al., 2015 Opinion No. 33 (Idaho 06/22/15)

Ruling: The Idaho Supreme Court held that a worker’s death in an automobile accident was compensable.

What it means: In Idaho, an accident can occur in the course of employment even when the worker is not on the clock.

Summary: A worker for Alpha Services, a logging operation, was driving a company truck to run a personal errand after his shift. He told his wife he was going to return to the job site. While attempting to turn onto a dirt road leading to Alpha’s storage container, the worker was broadsided by a semitrailer and was killed. The worker’s wife sought workers’ compensation benefits. The Idaho Supreme Court awarded benefits to the wife because the accident arose out of and in the course of the worker’s employment.

Alpha argued that there was no evidence that the worker was turning onto the dirt road for a work-related purpose when the accident occurred. The court found that the worker was likely turning down the road in furtherance of his work. Although the exact reason was unknown, both a coworker and a supervisor speculated that the worker was turning down the road for a reason associated with work. The evidence established that Alpha employees regularly drove to the storage container for work. No evidence suggested any personal reason why the worker might have turned toward the storage container. The court also noted that an accident can occur in the course of employment even when the worker is not “on the clock.”

Alpha also argued that the coming and going rule barred the wife’s claim. The court found that the Industrial Commission did not err in determining that the worker was at Alpha’s place of business when the accident occurred so the coming and going rule did not apply. Because of the location of the storage container, the worker and other Alpha employees were required to regularly travel between the storage container and the active logging site, exposing themselves to the risk of harm associated with the highway. The court found a “clear connection between the conditions existing on the premises and the accident.”

Benefits Denied for Commuting Accident in Company Truck

Bowlin Group, LLC v. Padgett, et al., No. 2013-SC-000402-WC (Ky. 06/11/15, unpublished)

Ruling: In an unpublished opinion, the Kentucky Supreme Court held that a manager’s injury was not compensable.

What it means: In Kentucky, the rule excluding injuries that occur off the employer’s premises during travel between work and home does not apply if the journey was part of the service for which the worker is employed or otherwise benefits the employer.

Summary: An installation manager for Bowlin Group was given a company truck and a gas card to use because his job required traveling to multiple work sites away from his office. Later, Bowlin closed the manager’s office and gave him the option of transferring or being laid off. The manager chose to transfer to another office where he was given an administrative clerical position. Other similarly situated employees were not given company trucks, but the manager did not lose the use of the company truck. He used the truck to commute to and from his home to work and to deliver documents and payments to another office. While driving to work, the manager hydroplaned and wrecked the company truck. He sustained serious injuries in the accident and sought workers’ compensation benefits. The Kentucky Supreme Court held that the manager was not entitled to benefits.

The court explained that generally injuries sustained by workers when they are going to or returning from work are not deemed to arise out of and in the course of employment. An exception exists when the journey is part of the service for which the worker is employed or otherwise benefits the employer. In this case, the court found that the exception did not apply.

The court found no evidence that the company truck was an inducement for the manager to transfer. Before the transfer, he did not have suitable transportation to travel among the various work sites, and the company truck allowed him to serve his role as a supervisor. When he was transferred, the company truck became a perk. The use of the truck was not a condition the manager demanded before he accepted the transfer. Instead, he was told that if he did not transfer he would be laid off.

The court also noted that the manager’s new job did not require the use of a company truck. While he took short trips to another office each day, there were other vehicles he could have used to complete the trip without being given a full-time company truck.

Trip to Vending Machine Yields Comp

Centers for Youth and Families, et al. v. Wood, No. CV-15-36 (Ark. Ct. App. 06/17/15)

Ruling: The Arkansas Court of Appeals held that a receptionist was entitled to benefits for her fractured pelvis.

What it means: In Arkansas, a compensable injury does not include an injury that was inflicted upon the worker at the time when employment services were not being performed. A worker’s injury when she briefly left her workstation to get a snack may be compensable.

Summary: A part-time receptionist for the Centers for Youth and Families greeted members and answered the telephone, but she was not always at the front desk. Since she worked part time, she had no scheduled breaks. She took breaks as needed. When there was a lull in the activity around the front desk, the receptionist walked to the vending machine to get a snack. On her way to the vending machine, she slipped on water in the hallway and fell, fracturing her pelvis. Usually after going to the vending machine, she would immediately return to her desk where she could eat her snack and perform her job duties. The receptionist sought workers’ compensation benefits. The Arkansas Court of Appeals held that she was entitled to benefits.

The center argued that the receptionist was not performing employment services because she had left her workstation at the time she was injured. The center asserted that her reason for walking to the vending machine was to get something to eat, which was entirely personal in nature and unrelated to her work. The court found that the receptionist was preforming employment services at the time she was injured.

The court explained that the receptionist was allowed to leave her workstation for various reasons, including getting a snack from the vending machine, as long as the telephone was not ringing and guests were not needing assistance. It was not uncommon for employees to get snacks from the vending machine supplied by the center. After getting a snack, the receptionist would immediately resume her job duties. The court said that her briefly leaving her workstation did not detract from her job duties, which benefitted her employer directly or indirectly.