Claimant [Employee] for Workers' Compensation Benefits sustained serious injuries when he was struck by two motorized bicycles while crossing a street enroute to a bus stop on his way home after having attended his Employer's invitation-only event for members of his Employer's team.
The Employer and its workers' compensation carrier [Employer] controverted Employee's application for Workers' Compensation benefits contending, among other things, that Employee's injuries did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. In response, Employee contended that his injuries were compensable under either the special errand or dual-purpose doctrines.
Following administrative hearings, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge [ALJ] agreed with Employer and disallowed the Employee claim. Employee applied for, and was granted, an administrative review of the ALJ's decision. The Workers' Compensation Board [WCB] vacated the ALJ's ruling, finding that "the employer exercised a degree of control sufficient to find a causal nexus at the time of the accident." In so doing, the WCB noted that "[Employee] was acting in furtherance of the employer's business" at the time of the accident and that the change in environment and corresponding search for the appropriate bus stop "caused a greater risk of injury during a trip that was necessary to carry out a function of [Employee's] employment." Employer appealed the WCB's decision.
The Appellate Division said "In order for an injury to be compensable under the Workers' Compensation Law, it must arise both out of and in the course of employment". Although accidents that occur outside of work hours and in public areas away from the workplace are typically "not compensable", there are a number of exceptions to this rule exist, including, as relevant Claimant situation, "where there is a causal nexus between the accident and the employment". The court noted that "The test for determining whether specific activities are within the scope of employment or purely personal is whether the activities are both reasonable and sufficiently work related under the circumstances".
Noting that relevant considerations include, among other things, "the nature of the claimant's off-premises travel, whether the employer derives a benefit therefrom, and "[t]he degree of control exercised by the employer at the time of the accident".
With respect to event giving rise to Employee's injury, Employee testified that attending the event, which had been placed on "everyone's calendar" by one of the Employer's managers, was not only encouraged but was "absolutely, [100%]" part of his job requirements as participating in such "sessions and events ... were an integral part" of his duties as an account executive, and building positive working relationships with the Employer's business partners was "the only way" he and his coworkers could "sell anything."
The Appellate Division also noted the Employee testified his Employer track[ed] every dollar of revenue and the amount of time and effort he expended in building these relationships impacted the metrics utilized to evaluate his performance.
Although the Employer's representative testified that employees were not required to participate in events such as the one underlying the instant action, he acknowledged that attendance at business partner events was "encouraged", explaining that the purpose of such events was to develop and maintain business relationships between the Employer's sales team and its business partners, which, in turn, allowed the Employer and its partners to better understand the different strategies that they should pursue in order to make sales.
The Appellate Division said that considering "the foregoing", it was satisfied that the WCB's finding of a causal nexus between the accident and Employee's employment is supported by substantial evidence. Despite the informal nature of the event, the Appellate Division opined that "it is readily apparent that the employer derived a benefit from [Employee's] participation in the event ... developing and maintaining business relationships that, in turn, ultimately generated increased sales and revenues for the [Employer].
Further, said the court, the record supports the WCB's finding that Employee's attendance at this work-related event "altered the usual geographical or temporal scheme of travel, thereby altering the risks to which [he was] usually exposed".
Accordingly, the Appellate Division affirmed the WCB's decision, noting that Employer's remaining arguments, to the extent not specifically addressed in its opinion, "have been examined and found to be lacking in merit".
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.