November 28, 2011

In Harm's Way: A Non-Compensable Fall

Geoffrey Hampton worked as a laborer for Intech Contracting LLC. Hampton, an insulin dependent diabetic, was working with a crew on September 9, 2009, repairing a bridge in Muhlenberg KY. Hampton suddenly uttered a profanity and walked to the edge of the bridge. He climbed over a 4 foot barrier and fell 60 feet, suffering permanent injuries.

Hampton has no memory of the incident. His co-workers testified that he had been complaining about not feeling well; that he had taken a snack of sweets to adjust his blood sugar; and that the fall did not appear to be an act of suicide.

Hampton was certainly "in the course and scope" of employment, but the question for the courts was whether his injuries arose "out of" employment. The Appeals Court found that his idiopathic condition - diabetes - was the likely cause of his actions and that his extensive injuries did not arise "out of" employment. As a result, Hampton was unable to collect workers comp.

It's important to note that Hampton's employer took specific steps on that fateful evening to remove Hampton from harm's way:
- When he requested time for a break to adjust his blood sugar, they immediately consented.
[NOTE: Hampton had inadvertently left his insulin at the hotel room.]
- When Hampton complained about not feeling well toward the end of the shift, he was told to sit in the truck. He left the truck and walked toward the bridge rail on his own.

Not All Risk is Work-Related
The court noted that Hampton's diabetes was not under control, which certainly raises the issue as to whether it was safe for him to perform this kind of work; if the employer had awareness of the medical condition, they should have required a note from Hampton's doctor that it was safe for him to perform the essential job duties.

The court implies that there were circumstances where an injury might have been compensable: for example, if Hampton had been working near the edge of the bridge and had experienced a black out due to hypoglycemia, he would likely have been eligible for comp benefits. However, if it could be proven that the black out was the result of his own negligence in attending to his illness, perhaps the claim would still have been denied.

But Hampton was sitting in a truck, safe and secure, with no unusual risks or exposures. He was clearly out of harm's way. There is no way of knowing why he did what he did, but it is clear that work had nothing to do with it. When he went over the rail of the Muhlenberg bridge, he gave no thought to the workers comp safety net that usually covers his every working moment. The findings of the court are both harsh and fair. For Geoffrey Hampton, the fateful date of 9/09/09 will resonate every moment of his diminished life.


Subscribe

Submit your email to be notified when this site is updated

Need help with your workers' comp program?

Monthly Archives

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Jon Coppelman published on November 28, 2011 10:35 AM.

Have you protected your employees from this seasonal peril? was the previous entry in this blog.

Good laptop ergonomics - for work and for play is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

OpenID accepted here Learn more about OpenID