This case
(Jensen-Price v Encompass Medical Group, 2016 MO WCLR Lexis 17 (Feb. 24, 2016)) deals with the
determination that a particular employee was injured on the job. As mentioned multiple times in this
volume, this seemingly straightforward determination is actually quite complex. Moreover, it determines
whether you are going to be in the workers’ compensation system, the civil system, or both, and
therefore has a big impact on your ultimate recovery.
In this
case, Claimant was struck by a cleaning cart in a common hallway on her way home. She sought out
workers’ compensation benefits to her low back, head and body as a whole. The commission here affirmed a
denial of benefits.
Here,
the Commission affirmed in dicta that an accident arises in the course of the employment even after
claimant leaves the employer’s property because going home with an intent to work is a travel between
job sites that keeps the accident a compensable workers’ compensation injury.
In this
case Claimant testified that she worked as a nurse and was leaving work in August of 2010. The claimant
said she fell down when she was bumped by a cleaning cart and trying to get into the elevator. She was
carrying her work laptop at the time.
As a
workers’ compensation attorney, I can see all too well how this case would play out. When Claimant would
try to get her case into civil court, and increase her recovery, Employer would defend by implying that
she would only be carrying the laptop if she was going home to work. Despite the fact that there are
literally dozens of other plausible explanations for why she was carrying the laptop, this explanation
could easily win out and keep the case in comp.
In any
case, Claimant sought to obtain benefits for a back surgery with a pre-existing condition. She had prior
hip replacements and back pain prior to the accident. Her expert had concluded that her back pain meant
that she was unemployable in the open labor market.
Here,
the ALJ found that the case was not compensable as claimant was “going and coming” to work. The ALJ had
used the lease for the hospital to determine that the employer had exerted no right of control over the
area by the employer, and therefore that the employee was not in the workers’ compensation arena at that
time. If the ALJ had prevailed here, the claimant could have filed a claim in tort.
However,
the Commission had reversed the determination of the ALJ and found that that the case involved a dispute
about whether about whether the injury arose out of and in the course of the employment, even though the
parties had framed the issue as being under a theory of extended premises. The Commission found the
reasoning of the ALJ to not be persuasive. The lease offered by Claimant was not relevant to any
determination of employment.
In
addition, the Commission found that because claimant was carrying a case with intent to perform further
work in the scope of employment, it did not matter that she was not actually working at the time. The
case would still be governed by the Workers’ Compensation statute. This means that the employee could
not recover under a civil liability theory. The injury that occurred was a product of a risk attendant
to employment, even if it did not happen while the employee was actually being paid.
Here,
the commission disagreed with the ALJ’s analysis that claimant’s work ended when she left the suite and
camp to a common area and concluded that because claimant was going home to work and going from one work
location to another, she was still on the job.
Gary Burger
Founder | Injury Attorney
Gary Burger has dedicated his career to standing up against bullies. The founder and principal attorney of Burger Law | St. Louis Personal Injury Lawyer has helped hundreds of Missouri and Illinois individuals and families recover th …
Years of experience: 30 years
Location: St. Louis, MO
click here more Info