Written by Chris Wilson, Esq.
Edited by Rachel Riordan, Esq.
A recent unpublished opinion by the Virginia Court of Appeals provides important guidance on what a claimant must show to prove that an injury “arose out of” his or her employment. In United Airlines, Inc. v. Taylor, No. 1169-15-4, 2016 Va. App. LEXIS 72 (Va. Ct. App. March 15, 2016), the claimant’s work accident was found non-compensable despite the fact that he lost his balance and fell down several stairs while carrying items totaling around 35 pounds. This case should serve as a reminder that the claimant must show not only that he was injured at work, but that “a condition of the workplace either caused or contributed” to the injury. See Southside Virginia Training Ctr./Commonwealth of Virginia v. Shell, 20 Va. App. 199, 202, 455 S.E. 2d 761, 763 (1995). In other words, the fact that the claimant is carrying something at the time of his injury does not necessarily mean the accident is compensable.
In Taylor, the claimant was employed as a ramp agent for United Airlines. His job duties included unloading baggage and other cargo from aircraft. On the day of the accident he was walking up a set of metal stairs while holding two strollers under his arms. Taylor estimated the stroller in his right hand weighed approximately thirty pounds, while the stroller in his left hand weighed about five pounds. As he was walking up the stairs his right knee “popped,” causing him to fall down the stairs and onto his back. His knee then popped back into place. Taylor admitted that the stairs were not slick and there was no debris on the stairs or any other defect in the stairs themselves that caused the fall.
Taylor, 25, was subsequently diagnosed with a dislocated right patella, a condition he had been diagnosed with twice before—once at age 16, and again when he was 17—both times from non-work related accidents. The deputy commissioner denied benefits on the basis that there was no non-speculative evidence that the dislocated knee “arose out of” Taylor’s employment.
The Full Commission then reversed after determining that it could “infer” from the facts, as well as the claimant’s medical history, that the “weight and bulk of the stroller(s)” were conditions of the employment that caused or contributed to his injury.
In an unpublished opinion, the Virginia Court of Appeals rejected this reasoning, emphasizing that there was “no medical testimony or opinion of a causal connection between the conditions of employment and the injury.” In a footnote, the Court explained that the claimant’s treating physician stated the claimant had suffered an “incident at work where he had another traumatic incident to the knee that caused a patellar dislocation.” Another of the claimant’s physicians opined that his condition and subsequent surgery were “causally related to the [work] incident . . . .”
The Court of Appeals held, however, that these statements were merely “descriptive”—in other words, while it was indisputably true that the claimant’s injury was caused by his accident at work, this was not the same as stating that a condition of the claimant’s employment caused the accident that resulted in the injury. The claimant’s testimony on the issue might have been sufficient, but the claimant did not testify that the weight of the strollers contributed to his fall. While the Commission is free to draw inferences from the facts before it, here the Court concluded that the inference fell into the “realm of speculation.” In this regard it appears the Court was persuaded by the dissenting argument of Commissioner Williams, who noted there was “nothing in the record to suggest that the dislocation would not have occurred, or would have been less likely to occur, if the claimant had been carrying nothing in his hands at the time of the incident.”
Commissioner Williams’s observation neatly summarizes the essential takeaway from this case: an injury that occurs at work does not become compensable in Virginia merely because the employee was carrying something at the time. Here, the Court of Appeals felt the weight the claimant was carrying (roughly 35 pounds) was not particularly heavy, citing a 2004 case[1] in which the Commission found that carrying a 70-75 pound bag over one shoulder did contribute to the claimant’s injury. The Court observed that, “as a general proposition, the heavier the weight, the stronger the inference of a causal connection between the work conditions and the injury.” There is no clear line of demarcation, but reading these two cases together suggests that the line will often fall somewhere north of 35 pounds.
This case should serve as a reminder to both adjusters and defense attorneys to conduct a thorough “arising out of” analysis even when it appears the claimant was carrying something at the time of the accident. If the weight did not contribute in some way to the accident—which will generally be the case with lighter items—the mere fact that the claimant was holding something will not support an award of benefits.
[1] Lamb v. F.H. Furr Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc., VWC File No. 212-74-88 (July 20, 2004).