Arising Out of and in the Course of Employment
By Lucas J. Cusack
In order to be paid for by an employer, an injury must ‘arise out of and in the course of employee’s employment. In order to meet that requirement, the worker must show that the accident was the “prevailing factor” in causing the injury and that they are not ‘equally exposed’ to that risk or hazard in their normal nonemployment life. While the “prevailing factor” requirement is very important, today’s post is about the “Equal Exposure” part of the rule.
The Missouri Supreme Court had two cases which made the Equal Exposure Rule seem very difficult to surpass. First, in Miller, a worker was injured while quickly walking across an even surface.[1] The Court denied the worker’s compensation claim because he was equally exposed to walking outside of work and nothing about his work had caused the injury. A few years later, the Missouri Supreme Court again made a ruling denying a claimant compensation. In Johme, an employee was making coffee in the work kitchen and tripped, which resulted in injuries.[2]The Court denied her compensation after finding that she was wearing 1-inch thick sandals which she wore outside of work and the only connection to work was the fact that it occurred while at the office. Since the twisting and turning in those shoes could happen anywhere, and nothing specific to work caused her to fall, she did not receive compensation.
Despite how difficult those cases made it seem to satisfy the rule, later cases have routinely passed the test. In Jensen-Price, the court tried to lay out a test that was easier to follow: figure out exactly what actual activity caused the injury and compare that to normal life.[3] In that case, the employee was hurt when she collided with a maintenance cart while walking. Even though she was just walking on a flat surface like in Miller, this was compensable because she did not encounter maintenance carts in her non-employment life. So the test has become very fact specific. In Wright, the court stated the source of injury/risk was the specific type of chair he was sitting in, not just sitting in any chair.[4] Other courts have even found that a particularly steep sidewalk on campus or a cracked street near work were the source rather than sidewalks or roadways generally.[5] Even just carrying a motorcycle helmet down the stairs was classified as a separate risk from just walking down stairs generally at home. [6]
What does this mean for future claims? It means that it is very important to be specific about what happened in the accident and how the injury occurred. Stating that you were injured while squatting to file papers rather than just stating that you were simply squatting could be the difference between passing the Equal Exposure rule or your claim being held non-compensable.[7] If you have any questions about this topic generally or have specific case questions, feel free to call an attorney at Bollwerk & Tatlow or email me directly at !
[1]Miller v. Mo. Highway & Transp. Comm'n, 287 S.W.3d 671, 672 (Mo. 2009)
[2]Johme v. St. John's Mercy Healthcare, 366 S.W.3d 504, 506 (Mo. 2012)
[3]Jensen-Price v. Encompass Med. Grp., No. WD79526, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 813, at *9-*15 (App. Aug. 23, 2016)
[4]Wright v. Treasurer of Mo., 484 S.W.3d 56, 63 (Mo. App. 2015)
[5]Lincoln Univ. v. Narens, 485 S.W.3d 811, 818 (Mo. App. 2016); Dorris v. Stoddard Cty., 436 S.W.3d 586, 592 (Mo. App. 2014)
[6]Pope v. Gateway to the W. Harley Davidson, 404 S.W.3d 315, 316 (Mo. App. 2012)
[7]Randolph Cty. v. Moore-Ransdell, 446 S.W.3d 699, 706-07 (Mo. App. 2014)