Ganus v. St. Bernard's Hospital, LLC
2015 Ark. App. 163
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Stephanie Ganus, an RN in the hospital cath lab, slipped on an elevator while leaving her unit to retrieve her own lunch and fractured her right knee; she stopped working thereafter and had surgery.
- Ganus and a co-worker testified that nurses typically did not clock out for lunch, were expected to assist patients/visitors while on breaks, and could be called back to duty during lunch.
- The employee handbook stated employees on a thirty-minute lunch break were "completely relieved" of work responsibilities, and pay was automatically docked for lunch time.
- An ALJ found Ganus’s injury arose out of and in the course of employment and awarded temporary total disability benefits.
- The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission reversed, finding Ganus was on a personal errand to retrieve her own lunch, not performing employment services at the time of injury.
- The court of appeals affirmed the Commission, holding substantial evidence supported the Commission’s finding that Ganus was not advancing her employer’s interests when injured.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether injury "arose out of and in the course of employment" | Ganus: was required to be available on break and employer benefited from her presence; thus she was performing employment services | Employer: Ganus was on a personal errand during an unpaid lunch and was "completely relieved" per handbook; not performing employment services | Held: Commission reasonably found Ganus was not performing employment services and denied benefits |
| Relevance of handbook language | Ganus: handbook language is permissive and not followed in practice (pledge required constant availability) | Employer: handbook says employees are completely relieved on lunch; supports noncompensable status | Held: Commission relied on handbook and practice; reasonable minds could accept finding she was relieved |
| Whether paid/unpaid status controls compensability | Ganus: paid/unpaid status not determinative; focus is whether performing employment services | Employer: emphasizes unpaid lunch and personal benefit of errand | Held: Court applied established test (advancement of employer interest), not strictly paid status; nonetheless found no employment services here |
| Applicability of analogies (e.g., on-call or required presence cases) | Ganus: cases where availability constituted employment services (Texarkana, Ray) control | Employer: factual differences—here patient left with another nurse and Ganus was retrieving her own food | Held: Distinguishing facts permitted different result; Commission decision affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Texarkana School Dist. v. Conner, 373 Ark. 372, 284 S.W.3d 57 (supreme court affirming compensability where employee’s actions advanced employer interests)
- Ray v. University of Arkansas, 66 Ark. App. 177, 990 S.W.2d 558 (paid short breaks and required availability can make injuries compensable)
- Hudak-Lee v. Baxter County Reg’l Hosp., 2011 Ark. 31, 278 S.W.3d 77 (break status not dispositive; compensability depends on performance of employment services)
- Cook v. ABF Freight Sys., Inc., 88 Ark. App. 86, 194 S.W.3d 794 (test for "employment services" is whether employee was carrying out employer’s purpose or advancing employer’s interest)
- Trezza v. USA Truck, Inc., 2014 Ark. App. 555, 445 S.W.3d 521 (standard of review for Commission decisions; affirm if supported by substantial evidence)