216-447-1551
info@rbslaw.com
From a Stuck Bag of Potato Chips to a Contested Workers’ Compensation Claim: Analyzing the Unusual and Uncommon Workplace Injury
It has happened to all of us. It’s somewhere around 3:00 on a busy afternoon and your stomach starts to rumble. A bag of Cool Ranch Doritos starts calling to you from the vending machine in your company’s break room. A quick fix to your hunger pangs is a short walk and mere 60 cents away. You gather up some nickels and dimes and head over to the vending machine. After depositing your coins and selecting your snack, the vending machine coils start to move…and your bag of Cool Ranch Doritos gets stuck.Now, if you’re anything like me, you decide to rock that machine back and forth until that bag of Cool Ranch Doritos drops. But what if you decide to ask the nice old janitor for help, as he just happens to be wiping down tables in the break room at that exact moment? And what if that nice old janitor is happy to oblige and starts rocking the vending machine back and forth? And what if, while trying his best to free your bag of Cool Ranch Doritos, that nice old janitor happens to rupture his Achilles tendon? First, you’re going to feel really bad for asking for help. Second, you’re going to ask yourself “I wonder if that nice old janitor has a compensable workers’ compensation claim?” Hopefully you’ll be pondering that question while enjoying some Cool Ranch Doritos.
Fortunately, we do not need to look too far for some guidance. A very similar fact pattern recently came before the Second District Court of Appeals. In that case, a similarly injured janitor argued that at the time of his injury, he was engaged in an activity that is “logically related” to his employment as a janitor. The Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (BWC) and the employer, on the other hand, argued that there was no association between the janitor’s job duties and the act of tipping a vending machine to retrieve a stuck bag of chips. This case came before the Second District after the trial court rendered summary judgment in favor of the BWC and the employer.
Of course, the issue here is whether or not the janitor’s injury was sustained “in the course of” and “arising out of” his employment as a janitor.
If you recall, the “in the course of” prong relates to the time, place and circumstances surrounding an injury. Under this prong, an injury is considered compensable if it is sustained by an employee while that employee engages in activity that is “consistent with the contract for hire and logically related to the employer’s business.” The Second District decided that there were “genuine issues” regarding whether the janitor’s actions were related to his contract for hire and logically consistent with the employer’s business.
The “arising out of” prong simply concerns whether or not there is a “causal connection” between an injury and employment. This prong takes into consideration the proximity of the scene of the accident to the place of employment, the degree of control the employer has over the scene of the accident and the benefit the employer received from the employee’s presence at the scene of the accident. The Second District decided that the first two “factors” were satisfied, as the janitor was injured at his place of employment, in an area controlled by the employer. With respect to “benefit,” the janitor argued that he was trying to help a co-worker and that he regularly pushed desks, bookshelves and other furniture, as per his job duties. The janitor argued that he was not engaged in horseplay, as he did not ignore any warnings and was not disregarding company policy and procedure. The BWC and the employer argued that no benefit existed, as tipping a vending machine was not an “ordinary risk” that the janitor experienced while performing his job duties. In the end, the Second District again decided that there were genuine issues of material fact concerning whether the janitor’s presence at the scene of the accident created a benefit to the employer.
The Second District essentially decided that a reasonable jury could conclude that an employee hired to perform janitorial services might be expected by his employer to assist other employees with problems they encounter in the workplace, especially in an area where the employee regularly performs janitorial services. Accordingly, the Second District could not support the finding of summary judgment and held that genuine issues of material fact existed that must be resolved through a trial.
Stuck bag of chips? Please do not contact Anthony Baucco. Questions or concerns regarding a hotly contested workers’ compensation claim? Please feel free to contact Anthony Baucco or any of the experienced workers’ compensation attorneys at RBS to discuss defense of the claim.