State Government
Court Expands
Workers' Comp Liability
By Steve Tuttle
A
ruling by a divided N.C. Court of Appeals appears to widen the
circumstances under which employers can be held liable for injuries
sustained by workers who hurt themselves doing dumb things only
remotely related to their jobs.The case involves a Parkdale Mills
employee who broke his leg climbing a locked gate around a parking lot
even though he could have left through an open gate nearby or waited a
few minutes for the locked gate to be opened. Even though the
employee‘s bad judgment caused his injury, the court said his
employer still must pay his medical bills and disability claims.
Although it stretches credulity, the Appeals Court said in its 2-1
decision issued on May 21 that climbing the locked, six-foot-high
chain link fence, which is topped by 18 inches of barbed wire, was a
reasonable activity related to the worker’s job. Judge James A. Wynn
wrote the opinion in the case, which was concurred by Judge Patricia
Timmons-Goodson. Judge John Tyson dissented and issued a blistering
dissent. The majority opinion includes the shocking statement that the
only instance in which an employee can be denied workers’ comp
benefits for an accident caused by his own negligence is “when the
injury is occasioned by his intoxication or willful intention to
injure himself or another.”
In September 1996, employee Richard Arp was leaving his job at the
Parkdale Mills plant in Belmont around 7 p.m. The factory has a
parking lot behind the plant enclosed by a six-foot-tall chain link
fence topped by 18 inches of barbed wire. Arp’s mother had arrived
to pick him up, and was parked outside the rear gate, which was locked
at the time. Arp could have left through the plant’s front entrance
and walked around to the back, or he could have waited for the rear
gate to be unlocked at shift-change time. Testimony indicated that Arp
was leaving early and didn’t want to be caught, otherwise he could
have had his mother pick him up at the front of the plant, where most
employees come and go. Instead, Arp tried climbing over the locked
rear gate, fell and broke his left leg.
Arp applied for workers’ comp benefits, and the N.C. Industrial
Commission, in a ruling by Deputy Commissioner Margaret Morgan Holmes,
ruled in his favor even though she found no evidence to dispute
Parkdale Mills’ contention that Arp was leaving work 15 minutes
early without authorization. On appeal, the full commission largely
upheld Holmes’ ruling and concluded that he was not “disobeying a
direct or specific order from a then-present supervisor when he
climbed the gate.” The commission also said that “contributory
negligence or bad judgment on the part of the plaintiff in attempting
to leave by climbing the gate is not a bar to recovery” under the
workers comp law and was therefore eligible for compensation. The
commission ordered Parkdale Mills to pay Arp ongoing total disability
compensation of $258.52 per week from the date of the 1996 accident
through the time that he returns to work, which he had since done.
Parkdale also was ordered to pay for all of Arp’s medical expenses.
Even though the amount of money involved was relatively minor,
Parkdale decided it should fight the decision as a matter of
principle. A spokesman said the company was disappointed with the
Appeals Court’s decision and that it would appeal the ruling to the
N.C. Supreme Court.
In the majority opinion he authored, Judge Wynn cited a 1968 case
holding that the workers’ comp law “should be liberally construed
. . . and its benefits should not be denied by a technical, narrow and
strict construction.” He cited a 1976 case in which the court said
“evidence tending to support plaintiff’s claim is to be viewed in
the light most favorable to plaintiff, and plaintiff is entitled to
the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn from the
evidence.”
Even the fact that Arp was not engaged in a job-related activity
doesn’t negate his claim, the court said, citing a 1984 case in
which an employee was given workers’ comp benefits for an injured
knee he sustained while racing other workers when they were supposed
to be taking a rest break. “The only ground set out in the statute
upon which compensation may be denied on account of the fault of the
employee is when the injury is occasioned by his intoxication or
willful intention to injure himself or another,” the court said.
What apparently most troubled Tyson was the majority gave so little
credence to the principle that workers’ comp benefits are for people
injured while actually performing their jobs. There must be some
direct relationship between the injury and the job, Tyson said in
citing a pivotal 1966 case, or else workers’ comp becomes “a
general health and insurance benefit act.”
Tyson also faulted the majority for giving great weight to the fact
the injury occurred on Parkdale’s property. He cited an N.C. Supreme
Court holding that “there is no magic in being on the (employer’s)
premises.” In that 1979 case, the state high court also said that a
worker can’t get workers’ comp benefits when he “does acts
different in kind from what he is expected or required to do, which
are forbidden and outside the range of his service.”
It just isn’t reasonable to award workers’ comp benefits for an
injury resulting from such an unreasonable act, Tyson said in a
stinging conclusion: “Scaling a seven and one-half foot tall locked
chain link and barb wire gate is an unreasonable activity for
plaintiff to exit defendant’s property when a safer method was
provided to and known by plaintiff. There was no evidence that any
other employees, including plaintiff, ever exited defendant’s
premises in this manner. Plaintiff’s activity was not in actual
performance of a direct job duty. Plaintiff’s activity was so remote
from customary or reasonable practice that is was not causally related
to his employment and is not compensable as a matter of law.”
Return
to magazine index
|
|
