Claimant worked with several other workers on a production team and her pay was based on productivity. On the day of her accident, she was informed by a distraught coworker (Bright), who was married to claimant's nephew, that the nephew had been in an automobile accident and that Bright was leaving work to check on him. Claimant informed her coworkers that she was going out to the parking lot to see if Bright needed assistance. While in the parking lot to check on Bright, claimant fell and injured her shoulder. She later reported the injury to her supervisor. The Industrial Commission found that claimant's injuries did not arise out of and in the course of her employment and made specific findings of fact that company policy prohibited personnel in the parking lot, except at authorized times, unless the employee had permission from a supervisor. Therefore, claimant's presence in the parking lot was not related to her employment, but was a direct result of an automobile accident involving her nephew.
The Court of Appeals reversed, found that the claim was compensable and pointed out that the more recent cases have not viewed minor deviations from the confines of a job description as an absolute bar to the recovery of benefits, even when such acts were contrary to stated rules or specific instructions of the employer. The Court went on to state that the fact that employer did not reprimand claimant or discipline her for acting on her co-worker's behalf is further evidence that claimant's actions "appreciably benefited" employer and that claimant had reasonable grounds to believe her actions would benefit her employer and create a feeling of good will. Choate v. Sara Lee Products (citation omitted).
Risk Handling Hint: This decision evidences the Court of Appeals' willingness to find compensable almost any injury occurring on an employer's premises, no matter how tenuous the relationship between the incident and the worker's employment. Defendants have appealed the ruling, which appears contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in Roberts v. Burlington Industries (citation omitted). Unless the Court of Appeals' holding is reversed, risk managers are encouraged to keep this case in mind when evaluating similar claims for possible acceptance or denial.