Workers’ compensation claims can be approved or denied for seemingly trivial reasons. Even when two cases appear nearly identical, one may be deemed compensable while the other is denied. Below are two real-world examples that highlight how nuanced these determinations can be.
Exhibit A
In October 2008, nursing assistant Ronna Woods attended a mandatory work seminar where employees were required to clock in and could not leave until they picked up their paychecks. After the seminar concluded but before collecting her check, Ms. Woods stepped outside for a cigarette break.
While walking toward a trash can, she slipped on concrete and fractured her left arm. She filed a workers’ compensation claim seeking medical and temporary total disability benefits. Although her employer contested the claim, a law judge ruled in her favor, and the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission upheld the decision.
However, an appeals court reversed the ruling, reasoning that by taking a break, Ms. Woods was no longer directly or indirectly advancing her employer’s interests. Ms. Woods appealed again, and the Arkansas Supreme Court ultimately reinstated her benefits—holding that a reasonable person could conclude she was still furthering her employer’s interests by remaining on the premises until she received her paycheck.
Exhibit B
In 2012, Oregon employee Mrs. Frazer filed for workers’ compensation after suffering a personal injury in a parking lot used by her company’s employees. Mrs. Frazer, who worked for a car rental company, took a paid break to smoke in a designated hut about 100 feet from the building. To reach the hut, employees had to cross a parking lot that was not owned or managed by the company, though several spots were reserved for employees.
After finishing her cigarette, she began walking back to work when her shoe caught in a crack in the pavement, causing her to fall and injure her knee and ankle. An MRI later showed a torn meniscus requiring surgery. Her employer denied the claim, but the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) ruled in her favor, stating the “coming and going rule” did not apply since she was on a paid break rather than commuting.
However, the Oregon Court of Appeals later overturned the WCB’s decision. The court held that the injury did fall under the “coming and going” rule, which typically excludes coverage for commuting-related injuries. The court reasoned that there was insufficient evidence she remained within 100 feet of her workplace when she fell, and that the employer’s limited control over the parking lot did not establish compensability.
Work Comp Attorney Commentary
Employers are responsible for maintaining safe entry and exit routes for employees — and that obligation extends to break times. Even if an employee is not performing duties that directly benefit the employer, a safe return to the workplace must still be ensured.
In Mrs. Frazer’s case, determining whether the smoking hut was a designated company area or simply a preferred employee location would have been critical. Workers’ compensation cases like these are extremely fact-specific, depending on the employee’s route, workplace hazards, and the level of control the employer maintains over the premises.
If you’ve sustained a workplace injury, contact our Minneapolis workers’ compensation attorneys at 612-INJURED for a free consultation. Call or text us at (612) 465-8733 to speak directly with an experienced workers’ comp lawyer today.