Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. and Arch Insurance Company v. Elizabeth A. Wilson
64 Va. App. 103
| Va. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Claimant, store manager at Dollar Tree in Altavista, tripped on a display of stacked one-gallon water cases (a three-by-three “water stack”) while walking around a register after closing duties on Oct. 21, 2011.
- She caught the register to avoid falling but felt immediate pain; a week later MRI showed a nondisplaced left femoral neck stress fracture and a low-grade stress reaction on the right; she underwent surgery and received medical releases in December 2011–March 2012.
- Claimant filed for workers’ compensation benefits for periods of temporary total and partial disability; a deputy commissioner initially denied the claim for lack of proof that the injury arose out of employment.
- The full Commission reversed, finding the water stack was a workplace hazard peculiar to the employment and remanded; on remand the deputy awarded benefits and the full Commission affirmed liability (modifying benefits), prompting this appeal by employer.
- On appeal, employer argued the injury did not arise out of employment because the hazard was not an actual risk peculiar to the work; the Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claimant's injury "arose out of" her employment (actual-risk test) | The water stack was a workplace hazard peculiar to claimant's duties; she had to maneuver around it when closing the register, so the injury had a causal connection to work | The injury was not caused by a risk peculiar to the employment and thus was a hazard to which anyone would be equally exposed (not compensable) | The Commission’s factual finding that the water stack was a workplace hazard is supported by credible evidence; the injury arose out of employment, so award affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Southland Corp. v. Parson, 1 Va. App. 281, 338 S.E.2d 162 (Va. Ct. App. 1985) (elements for compensable injury)
- County of Chesterfield v. Johnson, 237 Va. 180, 376 S.E.2d 73 (Va. 1989) (adopting the actual risk test for arising-out-of-employment analysis)
- Bradshaw v. Aronovitch, 170 Va. 329, 196 S.E. 684 (Va. 1938) (defining when an injury does not arise out of employment—hazard common to neighborhood)
- Marketing Profiles, Inc. v. Hill, 17 Va. App. 431, 437 S.E.2d 727 (Va. Ct. App. 1993) (explaining causal-connection standard under actual-risk test)
- Vint v. Alleghany Regional Hosp., 32 Va. App. 60, 526 S.E.2d 295 (Va. Ct. App. 2000) (hazard must be peculiar to the work, not common to the neighborhood)
- Diaz v. Wilderness Resort Ass’n, 56 Va. App. 104, 691 S.E.2d 517 (Va. Ct. App. 2010) (deference to Commission’s factual findings when supported by credible evidence)