Written by Andrew Willis, Esq.
Edited by Rachel Riordan, Esq.
Workers’ compensation claims involving office chairs are beginning to rise as an increasing number of workers in Virginia and across the U.S. move into sedentary jobs, including claimants working from home. This article looks at the state of the law in Virginia on work accidents involving office chairs and provides guidance on what you can ask during your recorded statement to help make the right decision when it comes to accepting or denying a claim involving an office chair.
The Law
The Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission has decided a number of cases involving injuries to claimants who sat in wheeled office chairs. The issue often litigated with office chairs is whether the accident “arises out of” the employment. The mere happening of an accident at the workplace, not caused by any work-related risk or significant work-related exertion, is not compensable. An injury “arises out of” the employment if there is a causal connection between the conditions under which the work is required to be performed and the resulting injury. As with cases involving claimants who simply fall while walking, the Commission generally requires some kind of defect or hazardous condition before an injury involving an office chair can be compensable. Specifically, the Commission has held that the mere “fact that [a] chair had wheels, of itself, is not sufficient to establish compensability.” Bell v. Sheetz, JCN VA00000401489 (March 29, 2013).
In Baker v. B&H Construction, VWC File No. 216-56-07 (April 18, 2005), a claimant suffered a compensable injury when the wheels of his rolling office chair became tangled in a carpet four inches behind the chair, causing him to fall. The Commission held that the claimant’s “use of a chair on rollers and the danger of the chair’s wheels becoming entangled in a rug that was located behind the desk” was a “unique hazard” of the claimant’s employment. Similarly, in Martin v. Randolph Macon College, VWC File No. 228-49-51 (July 11, 2007), the claimant’s fall was compensable when the rotating wheels under her chair did not turn correctly, causing the chair to tip over when she tried to push it to the right.
However, in Contreras v. County of Fairfax Board of Supervisors, VWC File No. 230-43-83 (November 3, 2008), the Commission seemed to say that the very act of sitting in a wheeled chair can be a risk of employment when a fall occurs. In Contreras, the claimant’s chair flipped over as she attempted to sit down on the edge of her seat. The Commission held that sitting in a wheeled chair is an act “which required more maneuvering and balance than merely pushing back” from a desk and found her claim compensable.
The Court of Appeals has not addressed work accidents involving wheeled chairs, meaning there could be big changes in the law as appeals become more frequent. This issue is expected to become more common as an increasing number of claimants work from home and sit in their own chairs.
Your Recorded Statement
As always, start by gathering basic information. If an office chair is involved in a claimant’s accident, does it have wheels? If so, how many? Do the wheels rotate? Does the chair recline? Does it swivel? Where is the chair located?
The cases described above provide clues about what kind of questions to ask during a recorded statement. It will be important to know whether the chair was defective in any way. Did the wheels turn properly? Did the chair roll smoothly? Was the chair stable? You will also want to know what the floor was like and whether that may have contributed in any way to the accident. In the Baker case, a change in the floor’s surface immediately behind the chair was a “unique hazard” of the claimant’s workplace. The cases also suggest that smooth floors are more likely to result in compensable accidents than carpeted ones – carpeted floors tend to slow the rolling chairs down, making them less dangerous. However, if the floor was carpeted, find out whether there was a defect in the carpet, for example, a loose piece of thread that might have become tangled in the wheels.
In addition, find out how the claimant was moving just prior to the accident. If the claimant was in the process of sitting down, the Contreras case suggests this is more likely to be compensable than if the claimant was already seated and pushing the chair in a particular direction. As with any other case, ask the claimant why the claimant thinks the accident occurred. “I don’t know” responses may very well result in the accident being found unexplained or not arising out of a peculiar risk of the employment.
Finally, keep in mind that the Commission will also look to whether the claimant was “required” to use the chair as a condition of employment. While the answer will probably be yes in the case of a typical, employer-furnished chair, the question could be especially relevant if the claimant was working from home and using the claimant’s own personal chair.
While this article contains some general suggestions for reviewing the compensability of work accidents involving office chairs, each case will be highly fact-dependent. The workers’ compensation attorneys at KPM LAW are happy to answer your questions about how the facts of your case are likely to affect the outcome.