office-3

Young v. Boone Electric Cooperative

462 S.W.3d 783 (Mo. App. W. D. 2015)
Full Opinion: [
Young v. Boone Electric Cooperative]
Code(s): 007 Accident; 030 Compensability

Factual Background:

Claimant was a lineman for an electrical company and his two work injuries were consolidated in this Appeal. His first injury occurred when he was walking back to his work truck to retrieve materials, stepped on a frozen dirt clod, and his left knee buckled causing him to fall to the ground. The second injury occurred at a later date while he was pulling himself into his work truck which was twenty-seven inches off of the ground. As he was pulling himself up using built-in handles, he felt a pop in his right shoulder and thereafter could not raise his arm. 

Commission Decision:

The Commission affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s award for benefits in both injuries. The Employer appealed to the Court of Appeals arguing that the knee injury did not arise out of Claimant’s employment. As to the second injury, Employer argued the act of pulling himself into the truck did not constitute a compensable accident. 

Analysis/Holding:

As to the left knee injury, the Court distinguished this case from the injuries in Miller and Johme. The Court said that Miller and Johme stand for the proposition that an unexplained injury is not compensable merely because the injury occurred at work. The Court found that Claimant stepped on the frozen dirt clod because of his work activities placing him there, and it did not matter that he experienced frozen dirt clods in his non-employment life. Regarding the right shoulder injury, the Court relied on a plain meaning of “accident” and found Claimant sustained an unusual strain which it deemed compensable.

The Court affirmed the decision of the Commission awarding benefits for both injuries. 


The Takeaway:

The Courts are still defining the issue of accident under the precedent established under Miller and Johme. When assessing compensability of accidents, a good question to consider is whether the worker was injured because he was at work as opposed to becoming injured merely while he was at work.  

Having a Seminar?
Join our E-Mail List
to stay up to date with Evans & Dixon