Bell V. Workers Compensation Case Study

The plaintiff in this action, Mr. Bell, is requesting from the Commission, to award compensation for his injury under the Worker’s Compensation Act. Mr. Bell, will be referred to as Bell, filed a workers’ compensation claim against defendant, Safe Place Children’s Home, which will be referred to as the Safe Place. Bell subsequently submitted a claim to the Safe Place human resources department and was denied. Bell’s injury is compensable because Safe Place mandated Bell’s physical presence and participation in a football game at an annual picnic which benefited Safe Place by socializing, boosting morale, and team building. An injury arises out of employment when the employee is expressly mandated at the recreational and social event and the

injury arose from actions designed to further the employer business purpose. Bell was expressly mandated by Safe Place to attend the picnic and physically participate in the recreational activity of flag football which required Bell to socialize, boost morale and team build with the caregivers, fellow supervisors, and residents of the home. The team building, socializing, and boosting morale all benefited to further Safe Place business purpose. Therefore, Bell’s injury arose of employment and is compensable.
Bell’s injury is compensable because Bell’s injury arose of out of his employment with Safe Place. When a pre-existing condition is aggravated or accelerated by an accidental injury that arose out of employment and in the course of employment then the employer must compensate the employee … even though it would not have disabled a normal person. Mr. Bell pre-existing condition was aggravated by natural consequence of Safe Place mandating his physical participation and presence at the annual picnic. Therefore, Bell’s injury arose out of employment and in the course of employment and is compensable.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Bell’s, injury happened during a time were he was expected to attend an annual picnic hosted by his defendant. (Bell Aff. Ex. 1.) Every employee was invited by the Board of Directors and the management to join the residents for an annual picnic, to enjoy fun outdoor activities and delicious food. (Bell Aff. Ex. 3.) The defendant’s, director, personally sent out an email to all supervisors expecting every supervisor, including Bell to attend and be present in order to “team building and boost morale” with the employees. (Bell Aff. Ex. 4.)
While at the annual picnic Mr. Bell was playing a recreational game of flag football with children and other employees, Bell sustained his injury, torn right rotator cuff. (Bell Aff. Ex. 2.) Two days, after the injury Bell was seen by Dr. Jones, who had previously treated him for an injury of the right rotator cuff. (Bell Aff. Ex. 2.) Bell regained full range of motion after treatment from previous injury of the right rotator cuff. (Bell Aff. Ex. 4.) However, after the most recent injury the physical exam revealed limited mobility of his right shoulder, ordering more test which resulted in the opinion, Bell will need surgery to repair the torn rotator cuff. (Bell Aff. Ex. 4.) The surgery will restore the rotator cuff to the full use. (Bell Aff. Ex. 4.)
Bell submitted a worker’s compensation claim along with a letter from Dr. Jones explaining the medical diagnosis (Bell Aff. Ex. 2) to Safe Place for an award, but subsequently the human resource department denied his claim, reasoning Bell was not working at the time of his injury and he did not suffer from a new injury because this injury was “just a recurrence of a previous injury.” (Bell Aff. Ex. 5.)

In order for an employee to have a compensable workers’ compensation claim, an employee must prove: (1) that an injury was by an accident, (2) the injury “arose out of the employment” and the injury was sustained “in the course of employment.” N.C. Gen. Stat § 97-2(6) (2015). “An injury … shall mean only injury by an accident which arises out of and in the course of employment.” Id.
In order for an injury to have arose out of employment, the accident must have originated from the employer or the employer be the cause of the accident. In other words, there must be some causal connection between the injury and the employer and any reasonable connection is sufficient to find the injury compensable. Perry v. Am. Bakeries Co., 136 S.E.2d 643, 647 (N.C. 1964).
It is necessary for any injury that has arose out of employment that the employer put the employee in the position or at the place where the accident occurred. When an injury happens while an employee is engaged in some recreational or social activity where he is expressly mandated at the event and the employer received a benefit from the event then the injury arose out of employment and will be compensable. Holliday v. Tropical Nut & Fruit Co., 775 S.E.2d 885, 895 (N.C. Ct. App. 2015).
Furthermore, it has been well established in our court system that the court uses competent evidence and findings to support the employee’s claim and to draw a reasonable inference from the evidence to benefit the employee and find the injury compensable. Perry v. Am. Bakeries Co., 136 S.E.2d 643, 647 (N.C. 1964). Additionally, to help guide with compensability determinations the court will use a six factor inquiry when injuries are sustained at employer-sponsored recreational and social event, known as the Chilton factors, are not controlling and only used as a guide. Id. at 893.
Finally, when there is a “pre-existing, nondisabling, non-job-related condition is aggravated or accelerated by an accidental injury that arose out of employment and in the course of employment then the employer must compensate the employee … even though it would not have disabled a normal person.” Wilder v.

Barbour Boat Works, 352 S.E.2d 690, 694 (N.C. Ct. App. 1987).

The first element has already been addressed because both parties agree that the injury suffered was an accident. (Bell Aff. Ex. 6.) Therefore, in order for an injury to be compensable a plaintiff must prove the injury arose out of and in the course of employment.

I. BELL SUFFERED AN INJURY WHILE AT SAFE PLACE ANNUAL PICNIC THAT AROSE FROM EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE SAFE PLACE BENIFITED FROM THE EVENT BY ATTENDING THE PICNIC, BOOSTING MORALE AND TEAM BUILDING AND THERE WAS A CAUSAL AND THERE WAS A CONNECTION BETWEEN THE INJURY AND THE EMPLOYEMENT WHICH WAS A RISK OF THE EMPLOYMENT.

A. Bell’s injury arose out of employment because Safe Place benefitted from the event where Mr. Bell was expected to be and the purpose of the football game was to boost morale in addition to team building with the caregivers whom he

supervises.

To assess whether the injury arouse of employment the employee must prove that the employee’s injury arose from actions designed to further the business purpose of the employer. Holliday v. Tropical Nut & Fruit Co., 775 S.E.2d 885, 889 (N.C. Ct. App. 2015).
Team building was essential benefit to the employer’s business purpose. In Holliday, an employee was required to be at an annual conference where the conference was sponsored by the employer, attendance was taken by employer, scheduled by the employer, and paid for by the employer. Id. at 891. In addition, in Holliday, the employer testified to have wrote-off the social and recreational activity of laser tag as a necessary business expense where the employee was injured. Id. at 890. The employer also testified the activity was purposely designed to bring a mix of different geographical distant employees together in order to team build and network. Id. at 892. The court reasoned because the employer benefitted from the event and the team building and networking served the business purpose of the employer which was to have employee’s “put a name with a face or a name with a voice,” or know who the person to reach out at another office for assistance or support. Id. at 895. Therefore, the court held the injury sustained during the laser tag event arose from employment because the employer benefitted from the event by team building and networking to serve the business purpose of the employer.
Here, Bell participated in teambuilding that enhanced a working relationship that benefited Safe Place business purpose. Bell was required to be present at the annual picnic, which was sponsored and scheduled by Safe Place. (Bell Aff. Ex. 4.) Similar to Holliday, where the employee was required to attend an annual conference, sponsored and scheduled by employer. Holliday, 775 S.E.2d at 889. Bell was required to participate in the activities, it was implied through an email. (Bell Aff. Ex. 4.) Whereas, in Holliday, the requirement to participate in the activities was expressed. Holliday 775 S.E.2d at 885. Bell was expected to be present at the picnic in order to “boost morale and team build with the caregivers Bell supervised.” (Bell Aff. Ex. 4.) Bell accomplished this through playing football which enhanced the working relationship with the caregivers Bell supervises. (Bell Aff. Ex. 1.) Similarly, the employee in Holliday, who was expected to participate in activities in order to team build and network with others in different locations. Holliday, 775 S.E.2d at 895. Bell was able to team build with the caregivers and with the children, building a better working relationship with fellow supervisors, caregivers, and residents of the home and unifying a working relationship is part of the building a team. (Bell Aff. Ex. 4.) The employee in Holliday, established that the employer benefited from team building, networking, and socializing with fellow employee and because the employer benefited from the event the court held that the benefit the employer received from the event is sufficient to award the injury compensable. Holliday, 775 S.E.2d at 895. Therefore, Safe Place did benefit from the annual picnic because Bell played football, participated in team building and boosting morale activities with caregivers, fellow supervisors, and residents of the children’s home at the annual picnic furthering Safe Place business purpose is sufficient to award compensability for Bell’s injury.
B. Bell’s injury arose out of employment because Bell sustained an injury playing football at an event that had originated from Safe Place Children’s home expectation to attend and to be present.

To assess whether an injury arouse of employment an employee must prove the employer
expressly mandated the employee at the event. Perry v. Am. Bakeries Co., 136 S.E.2d 643, 646 (N.C. 1964).
The purpose and expectation surrounding the participation in the event determine whether or not the employee was required to participate in the event. In Frost, the community organized a thank you for the volunteer Fire and Rescue staff and volunteer and the employee is injured in a go-cart accident. Frost v. Salter Path Fire & Rescue, 639 S.E.2d 429, 431 (N.C. 2007). The employee attends the event on a volunteer basis for pure pleasure, therefore the court held the injury did not arise out of employment. Id.
Conversely, in Holliday, the employee was told in advance that attendance was mandatory at annual conference.

Holliday v. Tropical Nut & Fruit Co., 775 S.E.2d 885, 895 (N.C. Ct. App. 2015). Additionally, the employer did not clearly inform the attendees that only their attendance, rather than physical participation in the recreational event, was mandatory. Id. Testimony by employer said attendance was mandated and followed by taking attendance. Id. Additionally, the employer testified the employee was mandated to participated by expressly stating to employees “wanted people to participate.” Id. The court reasoned since the employee was required to attend the event by their employer, the courts held the totality of the circumstances surrounding the purpose of and expectations surrounding the participation therein points in favor a determination for the employee’s injury arose from his employment.

Id.
Here, Bell expectation to attend and be present was expressly mandated by Safe Place. Safe Place hosted annual picnic with the purpose and expectation of boosting morale and team building. (Bell Aff. Ex. 4.) Distinguishable from Frost, where the event was hosted for the purpose as a thank you to volunteers. Frost, 639 S.E.2d 429 at 431. Safe Place required all supervisor to be present at the picnic (Bell Aff. Ex. 4) conversely from Frost, volunteers and employees voluntarily attended the event. Frost, 639 S.E.2d 429 at 431. Because the employee voluntarily attended the event, in Frost, the court reasoned since the employee voluntarily attended for sure pleasure not because a requirement of the employer is not sufficient to award the compensability for the injury. Id.
However, Bell was required to be at the annual picnic (Bell Aff. Ex. 4) similarly to the employee in Holliday, who was required to attend the conference. Holliday, 775 S.E.2d at 895. Bell was told in advance of the requirement to attend (Bell Aff. Ex. 4) similar to the employee, in Holliday. Holliday, 775 S.E.2d at 895. Because Bell was told in advance this would allow him to change any plans that he might have had due to the fact it was not a normal working day. Bell and the other supervisor were mandated to attend by the director (Bell Aff. Ex. 4) similarly in Holliday, the employer mandated to attend and attendance was followed by taking attendance. Holliday, 775 S.E. 2d at 895. Since, the email from the Safe Place director was only sent out the supervisors, one could reasonably assume attendance was not necessary since there are less supervisors than caregivers, therefore making it easier to notice who it not in attendance to the mandatory event. Additionally, the email from Safe Place did not clearly inform the supervisors or Bell whether attendance was only mandatory for the picnic and/or the participation of playing football (Bell Aff. Ex. 4.) However, in Holliday, the employer did not clearly state if attendance was mandatory for only the conference and not for participation in the laser tag. Holliday, S.E.2d at 895. Because Safe Place did not define the difference between the attendance at the picnic and the participation in the football game, Mr. Bell reasonably believed he was expected and required to participate in the football game. In Holliday, the court reasoned because the employee was mandated to attend and the “totality of the circumstances surrounding the purpose of and expectations surrounding the participation therein” was sufficient to award the injury compensable. Holliday, S.E.2d at 895. Because Safe Place mandated Mr. Bell to attend the annual picnic and the expectation to be present and participate in the football game is sufficient to award Bell injury compensable.