Fainting Unexplained? Then It Arose Out of Employment

Guill v. M. Squared Transportation, Inc., No. A157567 (Or. Ct. App. 04/06/16)

Ruling: The Oregon Court of Appeals held that a driver was entitled to compensation for his unexplained syncopal (fainting) episode.

What it means: In Oregon, a truly unexplained injury arises from the worker’s employment.

Summary: A truck driver suffered a syncopal episode while driving, and his truck ran into the highway barriers. The driver did not sustain any injury apart from the syncopal episode. The employer required him to seek medical services to diagnose the cause of his fainting episode.

The parties agreed that no cause was determined and that the syncopal episode was “truly unexplained.” The driver filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. The Oregon Court of Appeals held that he was entitled to benefits.

The parties did not dispute that the driver’s syncopal episode occurred in the course of his employment. The employer asserted that the syncopal episode was not an “injury” under the workers’ compensation law. The court rejected the argument. The driver experienced a harm that required diagnostic medical services.

The court also concluded that the driver’s syncopal episode arose out of his employment. The court said that where the cause of an injury cannot be determined, the injury is considered to result from a neutral risk.

Where the neutral risk is an unexplained injury without an ascertainable cause, courts consider whether the worker eliminated idiopathic causes for the unexplained injury. Here, the medical services the driver sought did not ascertain the source of the syncope. Therefore, his injury was truly unexplained and arose out of his employment.

Worker Wins Benefits for Injury After Being Startled by Animal

Kuzma v. U.S. Steel, 24 ILWCLB 34 (Ill. W.C. Comm. 2015)

Ruling: The Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission held that a worker’s injury, sustained at work when he spun his body after being startled by a cat, arose out of his employment.

What it means: In Illinois, where the worker’s accident is caused by his reaction to a cat jumping out of a crate, the location of the accident is within the employer’s control, and evidence indicated that cats were a problem in the area, the worker’s injuries caused by the accident arise out of and in the course of his employment.

Summary: A worker worked for U.S. Steel in the maintenance services and utilities department. On the day of the accident, he was attempting to retrieve materials in the yard to build a storage crate. While reaching into a box, the worker was surprised by a cat that jumped out of a crate. He spun around and hit his left arm on the crate. He testified that stray and feral cats had been a problem in the area.

The yard was fenced and was the property of U.S. Steel. He was diagnosed and underwent surgery for a full thickness rotator cuff tear, left supraspinatus and upper infraspinatus tendons, and biceps tendinopathy.

The arbitrator found the worker’s accident arose out of and in the course of his employment with U.S. Steel. The location of the accident was completely under U.S. Steel’s control.

Also, the crate the worker was reaching into when he was injured was located outside in a fenced in area in which cats had been an issue. Therefore, the risk for the worker reaching into a crate and being surprised by an animal was higher than that faced by the general public.

The arbitrator awarded medical expenses, temporary total disability benefits, and permanent disability benefits for 15 percent loss of use of the left arm. The commission affirmed and adopted the decision of the arbitrator.

Farm Worker Entitled to Benefits for Attack by Coworker

Cruz v. Cutone Mushrooms, 31 PAWCLR 54 (Pa. W.C.A.B. 2015)

Ruling: The Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board affirmed the workers’ compensation judge’s finding that a mushroom picker was in the course and scope of his employment when he was stabbed by a coworker. The board also found no error in the WCJ’s reinstatement of the picker’s benefits when the picker, an unauthorized alien, obtained an employment authorization card and was able to work.

What it means: In Pennsylvania, where a worker while on break goes to a coworker’s residence located on the employer’s property to talk to a coworker who was upset with him regarding a work-related matter, the worker’s injuries sustained when the coworker attacks him arises out of and in the course of his employment.

Summary: The board affirmed the WCJ’s finding that a mushroom picker for Cutone Mushrooms was in the course and scope of his employment when he was stabbed by a coworker.

The picker credibly testified that he was working that day and took a break to get coffee. During that break, he went to see the coworker, who resided in housing that was located on the employer’s property.

The reason he went to see the coworker was related to his employment, as the coworker was upset that the picker had come into his area to pick mushrooms, and the picker wanted to be sure they did not have any problems at work. It was during that confrontation that the coworker stabbed the picker.

Based on this evidence, substantial support existed for the WCJ’s conclusion that the picker was in the course and scope of his employment when he was injured.

Also, the picker’s credible testimony sufficiently supported a finding that the encounter with the coworker was related to the picker’s work and was not the result of personal animosity.

The board also found no error in the WCJ’s reinstatement of the picker’s benefits as of the day the picker, an unauthorized alien, obtained an employment authorization card and was able to work.

As such, his loss of earning power was no longer caused by his immigration status, and the employer could not suspend the picker’s benefits without showing job availability.

Officer Fails to Secure Compensation for Work-Related Stress Disorder

Orange County Sheriffs Office, 116 NYWCLR 41 (N.Y. W.C.B., Panel 2016)

Ruling: The New York Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the workers’ compensation law judge’s decision denying benefits to an investigator, who alleged he developed post-traumatic stress disorder due to highly stressful work situations.

What it means: In New York, medical reports attributing the worker’s psychiatric condition to the dissolution of his marriage rather than alleged stressful conditions while working will undermine his workers’ compensation claim for stress.

Summary: The board affirmed the WCLJ’s decision denying benefits to a senior investigator at the sheriff’s office, who alleged he developed post-traumatic stress disorder due to highly stressful work situations.

These situations included a 10-hour hostage stand-off with an armed suspect, his partner and the chief of police committing suicide, and no debriefing of any of these incidents.

He testified that he attempted suicide because of problems with his marriage and stress from work. He resigned after being arrested for stealing at a retail store.

The WCLJ found that when the investigator’s doctor was questioned with contemporaneous medical reports, which attributed the investigator’s condition to the dissolution of his marriage rather than anything that happened at work, the doctor admitted that such reports were wholly at odds with what the investigator told him.

The doctor’s causation opinion was based on the investigator’s testimony. As the medical records completely undermined the investigator’s testimony and assertions that his psychiatric problems were related to his alleged work stress, the board found that the investigator failed to prove a compensable disability.

No Comp for Mental Distress Caused by OSHA Violations

Arnold v. Charter Oak Health Center, Inc., No. HHDCV136046977S (Conn. Super. Ct. 04/01/16)

Ruling: The Connecticut Superior Court held that the exclusive remedy provision barred a manager’s suit alleging that she suffered from anxiety and emotional distress after she learned that she was exposed to tuberculosis at work.

What it means: In Connecticut, an employer’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration violations are not sufficient to show that the employer had an intent to create a situation that would cause a worker’s injury.

Summary: A lead outreach and enrollment case manager for Charter Oak Health Center was working when a patient came to the urgent care clinic for complaints of persistent vomiting for three weeks and the inability to take oral foods or liquids.

The patient was sent to a hospital where she was ultimately diagnosed with active tuberculosis and died. Charter Oak’s vice present of operations and director of nursing were informed about the patient’s diagnosis.

The director of nursing was assigned the responsibility of identifying who came into close proximity with the patient and testing them for potential tuberculosis exposure. The director of nursing mistakenly believed that the majority of employees did not need to be tested because they had participated in Charter Oak’s recent annual testing.

The next month, all employees were notified of the potential exposure to tuberculosis and advised to receive testing. The manager sued Charter Oak, alleging that she suffered from anxiety and emotional distress after she learned that she was exposed to tuberculosis.

She also claimed further anxiety and emotional distress when she discovered that Charter Oak withheld the fact that she had been exposed to tuberculosis. The Connecticut Superior Court held that the suit was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the workers’ compensation law.

The court explained that because the manager’s emotional distress arose from an occupational disease her injuries fell within the workers’ compensation law’s definition of a “personal injury” and were compensable under workers’ compensation.

An exception to the exclusivity provision exists when the employer intentionally created a dangerous condition that made the worker’s injuries substantially certain to occur.

The court found that this exception did not apply. Charter Oak’s OSHA violations were insufficient to show that it had an intent to create a situation that would cause an employee injury. The court found that the manager merely speculated that Charter Oak intentionally withheld information.

The court said that at most the director of nursing and the vice president of operations negligently failed to test employees who had contact with the patient.

Parking Directive Sinks Employer’s Attempt to Deny Claim

Administrative Office of the Courts v. Blevins, et al., No. 2015-CA-001726-WC (Ky. Ct. App. 04/08/16)

Ruling: The Kentucky Court of Appeals held that a clerk was entitled to benefits for her fall on black ice in a parking lot.

What it means: In Kentucky, a worker may be entitled to benefits for an injury occurring in a public parking lot when the employer directed her not to park in its own lot.

Summary: A deputy clerk for the Administrative Office of the Courts was directed not to park in the employer’s parking lot to provide access to other personnel. She parked in the next closest public parking lot beside the sheriff’s office. She needed to walk 150 feet to reach her workplace.

While walking, the clerk slipped and fell on a patch of black ice on the sidewalk in front of the sheriff’s office and injured her right leg. The clerk filed a workers’ compensation claim. The Kentucky Court of Appeals held that she was entitled to benefits.

The employer asserted that the coming and going rule barred her claim and that the operating premises exception did not apply. The clerk did not park in a lot that was owned, leased, maintained, or controlled by her employer.

She parked in a public lot and was injured on a public sidewalk used by the public in general. She did not park in a place where the employer required her to park. The clerk was directed not to park in the employer’s lot, which left her with the only reasonable alternative being to park in the closest place.

The court explained that the clerk had no alternative as to parking because of restraints placed on her by the employer.

The employer impeded her access to its own parking lot for the operative convenience of providing access to other personnel. The court found that the employer “effectively expanded the parameters of its own ‘operating premises.’”

A dissenting judge opined that operating premises must be a place defined by an employer. The judge opined that the majority’s decision stood for a proposition that when an employer forbids workers from using a parking area the employer effectively converts every other conveniently located parking space into its operating premises.