280_C029

CLAIMANT’S INJURY AROSE OUT OF EMPLOYMENT, NOT SOCIAL OR RECREATIONAL EVENT

Workers Compensation	Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
Course Of Employment	Mutually Beneficial Activity

Edith L. Hizey began working as a sales representative for MCI in 1992. Her usual business activities involved contacting potential customers by phone to attempt to sell MCI long-distance and local telephone services. However, she could earn extra money by participating in either of two incentive programs. One was the typical performance-based program for obtaining sales above and beyond established goals. The other was voluntarily competing in contests or games that MCI management organized, announced, and supervised. These were designed to energize and motivate employees. Employees continued to be paid while they participated in these activities that always took place during working hours and at MCI’s premises. MCI management encouraged employees to participate (although doing so was not required).

Hizey reluctantly participated in a dance contest, during which she twisted her knee and fell backward, striking her head on the floor. She was helped to a chair after lying on the floor for a few minutes and taken to the hospital. After the fall, she experienced increased pain in her knees, lower back, neck, and head. She filed a claim for workers compensation benefits that MCI contended were not compensable according to statute. The administrative law judge (ALJ) disagreed. He found that the activity that caused Hizey’s injury did not fall within the exception to the definition that was the basis of MCI’s argument.

MCI appealed but the Board concluded that the nature of the activity was within the scope of Hizey’s employment and not predominantly social or recreational. During this time, Hizey filed an application for temporary disability benefits which MCI also contested. The Board eventually allowed them and reaffirmed its previous ruling concerning compensability as follows:

“These activities had become a regular part of the employment of this respondent. The activities, organized by the employer, with prizes as incentives, were supervised by respondent’s management team and the employees were encouraged to attend. The activities were always on company time and were held on the respondent’s premises. The Board finds that these activities, rather than being recreationally or socially motivated activities, were elevated to activities of employment with this employer. It is clear that these activities were beneficial to both the employer and the employees. The Board finds that claimant has proven that she suffered accidental injuries arising out of and in the course of her employment with respondent on October 7, 2003.” (Emphasis added.)

MCI appealed. The sole issue it raised was whether the applicable Kansas statute barred recovery. MCI argued that the Board applied an improper legal standard for determining if Hizey’s injury arose out of her employment. It noted that the statute stated that “the words ‘arising out of and in the course of employment’ as used in the workers compensation act shall not be construed to include injuries to employees while engaged in recreational or social events under circumstances where the employee was under no duty to attend and where the injury did not result from the performance of tasks related to the employee’s normal job duties or as specifically instructed to be performed by the employer.”

This was the basis for MCI’s argument. Hizey contended that the activities were within the normal scope of her employment because MCI management organized, implemented, and encouraged them for the company’s benefit during normal business hours on its premises.

The Court of Appeals of Kansas considered all these arguments in conjunction with previous case law. It determined that the circumstances in this case clearly revealed that the activity that resulted in Hizey’s injuries was not a recreational or social event and that the two-pronged test of the statute did not apply. It affirmed the Board’s conclusion that Hizey suffered accidental injury that arose out of and in the course of her employment and that her injuries were compensable.

Court of Appeals of Kansas. Edith L. Hizey, Appellee, v. MCI, Respondent/Appellant and Zurich U.S. Insurance Company, Insurance Carrier/Appellant. No. 97,947. April 25, 2008. Review Denied Sept. 24, 2008. 181 P.3d 583