Appeal of Margeson
162 N.H. 273
| N.H. | 2011Background
- James Margeson injured his right knee on April 18, 2009 while working as a youth counselor at the John Sununu Youth Center (third shift).
- The injury occurred during a routine bed check when he descended stairs, landed awkwardly, twisted his knee; stairs were new, not defective, and not hazardous.
- CAB found the injury fell under a neutral risk; employer argued a pre-existing war wound contributed but CAB rejected that, and Margeson sought treatment and missed work from April 19 to June 5.
- Employer denied benefits; a hearings officer upheld the denial; CAB upheld the denial, finding no greater employment risk than everyday life.
- This court vacated and remanded to determine appropriate test for whether a neutral-risk injury arising at work is compensable.
- Court adopts a single test for neutral-risk injuries (increased-risk test) and remands to CAB to apply it with factual findings on stair use frequency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What test governs neutral-risk injuries? | Margeson urged Steinberg I framework / any work-related activity standard. | Employer urged the traditional increased-risk framework is not appropriate for neutral risks. | Increased-risk test applies to neutral-risk injuries; remand for factual application. |
| Is the April 18, 2009 knee injury a neutral-risk injury? | Injury arose from a neutral risk not attributable to employer or employee. | Injury should be analyzed under non-neutral-risk theory if applicable; no greater risk than ordinary life. | Yes, the injury arose from a neutral risk. |
| What factual findings are required on remand? | CAB should apply increased-risk test to facts, including stair-use frequency. | CAB findings should support whether increased exposure to a hazard existed. | Remand to CAB to make explicit findings on stair use frequency and apply the increased-risk test. |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Town of Atkinson, 128 N.H. 641 (1986) (defines 'in the course of employment' and 'arising out of' concepts)
- New Hampshire Supply Co. v. Steinberg, 121 N.H. 506 (1981) (discusses legal causation and health sources)
- Appeal of Redimix Cos., 158 N.H. 494 (2009) ( adopts two-part causation standard for work-related injuries)
- Appeal of Kehoe, 141 N.H. 412 (1996) (expands 'any work-related activity' concept for legal causation)
- Dustin v. Lewis, 99 N.H. 404 (1955) (supports distinction between arising out of and in the course of employment; limits liability)