Workers' Compensation. "Zone of Employment

Transcription

1 Workers' Compensation "Zone of Employment

2 In the Course of and Arising out of The in the course of element limits compensable injuries to those sustained by an employee while performing a required duty in the employer s service. It refers to the time, place, and circumstances of the injury.

3 To be entitled to workers compensation, an employee need not necessarily be injured in the actual performance of work for his employer. It is sufficient that the employee s injury is sustained while engaging in activity that is reasonably incident to the employee s duties. Hill v. General Heat Treating, Inc. (8th Dist., 1988), 47 Ohio App.3d 72, 547 N.E.2d 405.

4 The Coming and Going Rule An employee with a fixed place of employment, who is injured away from the employer s premises, but traveling to and from the premises, is not entitled to receive workers compensation benefits because the requisite causal connection between the injury and the employment does not exist

5 Exceptions to the general rule. An injury is compensable, although it occurred while traveling to or from the employer s premises if: (1) the injury occurs in the zone of employment ; (2) if it was a result of a special hazard of the employment; or (3) there is a causal connection based upon the totality of the circumstances.

6 The Zone of Employment Exception zone of employment exception is that an injury should be compensable if the employment environment exposed the employee to hazards that are peculiar to the employment (and these hazards caused his injury). But where an off-site injury occurs due to hazards which are likely to exist anywhere and bear no relationship to the employment, the exception is not available. The Ohio Supreme Court has described the zone of employment concept as being that area in proximity to the employer s premises presenting hazards attributable to the employment.

7 Weiss v. Univ. Hosp. of Cleveland (8th Dist 2000), 137 Ohio App.3d 425, The plaintiff tripped and fell as she stepped on to a curb while on her way to work. The plaintiff had parked her car in a lot across the street from her workplace, and as she crossed the road via a crosswalk, she tripped on a curb that was unusually high due to construction by the City of Cleveland.

8 Although the crosswalk provided a direct route to the entrance of the plaintiff s workplace, the court held that she was not in the zone of employment because her employer did not require her to park in this particular lot, her employer was not responsible for its operation or management, and the hazard that actually caused her injury was in an area controlled by the City. The use of the sidewalks, driveways, and parking spaces in this case were subject to rules and regulations established by Galaxy, and Galaxy was responsible for their maintenance and upkeep, including the removal of ice and snow the specific hazard that actually caused Plaintiff to fall and become injured. Plaintiff s off-site injury did not occur due to the conditions of his employment but, rather, occurred due to hazards likely to exist anywhere.

9 Watkins v. Metrohealth Sys. (October 31, 2002), Cuyahoga App. No , 2002-Ohio-5961, the plaintiff was attempting to park her vehicle in a garage owned by her employer when her foot slipped off the brake and onto the accelerator, causing her car to ram another parked car. She filed a workers compensation claim. The court found that she was not injured within the zone of employment because, [a]lthough [her employer] owned the lot where the accident occurred, [the plaintiff] was not required to use the parking lot. She did so at her discretion, admitting that she chose to drive her car and park at the lot as a matter of convenience, not necessity. She had several options in parking available to her, including parking on a public street.

10 The Special Hazard Exception An injury sustained from a special hazard incident to employment is compensable. The requirements of a special hazard are: (1) but for the employment, the employee would not have been at the location where the injury occurred, and (2) the risk is distinctive in nature or quantitatively greater than the risk common to the public.

11 Parking Lot cases Burkey v. Elyria Maintenance, 2005-Ohio-992 (Ohio App. Lorain County). Claimant was murdered in a parking lot of her employer. She had already clocked out. The employer controlled the parking lot (a fence was around it and it was padlocked, and employees were required to park there). In addition, the claimant had to return a company van to that lot. The Appellate Court emphasized that there was no evidence to indicate the murder was "personal" in nature, and thus not compensable. The court found that the fact she clocked out was not relevant to the question of whether or not the claim was compensable.

12 Foster v. Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 2004-Ohio-6863 (Ohio App. Cuyahoga County) Claimant was murdered by her husband in the lobby of her workplace. The Court of Appeals held that this claim was not compensable because the murder arose out of personal marital problems and is independent of the employment.

13 A. Shafer v. Tri-Arch 14, Inc., 2005-Ohio-2845 (Ohio App. Cuyahoga County) - Employee was required to park in the parking lot of the funeral home across the street. She was struck by a car while crossing the public street. The claimant obtained summary judgment. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Tri-Arch required the employee to park in that particular parking lot. She was therefore within the zone of employment, even though jaywalking across the street. Thus, she was entitled to participate in the workers' compensation fund, and the trial court's judgment was affirmed.

14 Castaneda v. AE Outfitters Retail Co., Ohio-5554 (Ohio App. Lorain County) Employee was struck by a car in the parking lot. The employer had no obligation to maintain the lot (it was a retail store) and did not assign spots in the lot. The Court of Appeals held, in this particular case, where the employer had no control or authority over the parking and did not limit the way employees could enter or where they parked, the parking lot is not within the zone of employment and the coming and going rule applies.

15 Jesse v. The May Department Store Co., Ohio-5513 (Ohio App. Lake County) Same factual scenario as in Castaneda, but in this particular case the employer instructed its employees to refrain from parking in the first four rows out of consideration for customers. In this case, the Court of Appeals for Lake County indicated that the injury is compensable because the employee was in the zone of employment.

16 Duvall v. J & J Refuse 2005-Ohio-223 (Ohio App. Stark County). Truck driver was hurrying down the stairs to get some paperwork. He was in a hurry because he wanted to attend the company Christmas party later in the day. His left knee became painful and started to buckle and twist. He filed for a sprain of the left knee and that claim was denied. There is evidence in the file that he did have a two-week history of knee pain. The court held "upon review of the record, it is clear that appellant had preexisting left knee problems and that such problems caused his knee to buckle and twist on the day in question." The court disallowed the claim, ruling that Duvall's actions in hurrying down the stairs clearly do not amount to a condition or hazard of his employment, but rather constitute a condition or hazard caused by appellant himself.

17 Idiopathic Falls Griffen v Hydra Matic Division, General Motors Corp. (1988) Injury occurring on employer s premises arose out of employment irrespective of any special hazard greater than the hazards encountered by the general public.

18 Waller v Mayfield (1988) If a claimant can eliminate the possibility of idiopathic causes of an unexplained fall, an inference arises the unexplained fall arose out of the employment

19 Grimes v Mayfield (1989) A claimant sneezed and held his arms in a raised position at his press thereby dislocating his shoulder. The Court held that idiopathic causes for the sneeze were eliminated and the claim was compensable.

20 Personal Risks concurring with employment Injurious effects of a fall attributable to personal risk (e.g. vertigo) are compensable if the employment placed the employee in a position that increased the dangerous effects of such a fall (e.g. on top of a tall building, near machinery with sharp corners, driving a motor vehicle