August 2006 SBH Quarterly Newsletter
PDF FormatWashington BIIA WC Case Law Updatee
Diabetic’s injury due to skipped meal found compensable.
Claimant worked as a caregiver for a residential care home. She usually ate
at three specific times during her work day. On the date of injury, she
testified she was unusually busy taking residents to the park and did not
arrive back at the residence until 8:00 p.m., missing her usual 5:00 p.m.
meal. The Board found her injury arose out of employment because she skipped
her normal meal due to work duties.
This case illustrates the importance of obtaining witness testimony
regarding course and scope cases. The employer contested the period of time
claimant alleged she was at the park and asked the Board to assume she had
taken cigarette breaks on the day of her injury. However, because no
witnesses testified to the assertions, the Board had to disregard these
potential defenses. Kendra S. Easton, 58 Van Natta 934 (2006).
Injury sustained during arrest not compensable.
In contrast to Kendra Easton discussed above, the following case
demonstrates how credible witnesses can assist in winning a course and scope
case for an employer. Claimant, a tow-driver, was pulled over for speeding.
He contacted his dispatcher and was told to cooperate. However, the police
officer testified that claimant refused to provide identification and would
not exit his vehicle. A stun gun was eventually used, injuring claimant’s
neck. The Administrative Law Judge found the police officer credible, and
the Board deferred to those findings.
The Board noted violations of employer’s policies, rules or directives are
not automatically noncompensable if the violations related to the method of
accomplishing ultimate work duties. Here, however, the injury did not occur
in the course of employment because claimant exceeded the bounds of his
ultimate job duties by defying his employer’s instructions to cooperate with
the police officer. His injury did not arise out of employment because his
risk of injury was due to a personal decision not to cooperate with the
police. This action was not based on activities inherent in his job. This
case likely turned on the credible testimony of the police officer. David W. Sisco, 58 Van Natta 1114 (2006).
Injury incurred at friend’s house found compensable.
In a case undoubtedly frustrating for the employer, claimant worked as an
in-home caregiver for the employer’s client. She cooked, cleaned, grocery
shopped and drove the client to appointments. On the day of injury, claimant
drove the client to the grocery store, dropped him off, and proceeded to
drive to a friend’s house. Claimant testified that she went to her friend’s
house to discuss the date of the client’s next brain trauma class because
the friend was considering taking over the client’s care. After visiting
with her friend, claimant walked towards her car, tripped and fell on a tree
root, and was injured.
The Board found claimant was a traveling employee because her work included
travel away from the client’s home on a regular basis. Thus, her injury
while traveling occurred in the course and scope of employment unless she
engaged in a distinct departure on a personal errand. The Board found the
injury was reasonably related to claimant’s travel status because claimant
visited her friend while waiting for her client to shop and they met to
discuss the location of the client’s next brain trauma class. Her departure
from working was brief in time and short in distance. The departure was
transitory and slight. Board Member Langer wrote a lengthy dissent. Barbara
R. Scardi, 58 Van Natta 1611 (2006).
<< Newsletter Page