Johme v. St. John's Mercy Healthcare
2012 Mo. LEXIS 101
| Mo. | 2012Background
- Johme, a billing representative for St. John's Mercy Healthcare, was clocked in while taking a coffee break and making coffee in the office kitchen.
- She was injured in the kitchen when she twisted her ankle and fell after turning to walk back to her desk; she wore sandals with a thick heel.
- The fall occurred while performing a work-related task (making coffee) in a familiar workplace setting with no floor hazards.
- An injury report was completed; Johme claimed workers' compensation benefits, but the ALJ denied the claim and the Commission reversed the denial.
- The Commission applied the personal comfort doctrine alongside 287.020.3(2), deeming the injury compensable because the activity was incidental to employment.
- St. John's Mercy Healthcare appealed, challenging the Commission's construction and application of the statute and related caselaw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the injury arose out of and in the course of employment under 287.020.3(2)(b) | Johme argues injury arose out of employment via related risk. | St. John's contends the injury did not arise from employment-related risk, failing 287.020.3(2)(b). | Not compensable; injury did not arise out of employment. |
| Proper interpretation of statutory abrogation and application of Miller v. Missouri Highway & Transportation Commission | Miller shows causal link must be found between work and risk not present in normal life. | Court should construe 287.020.3(2) strictly and apply abrogation of earlier cases. | Miller controls; Commission erred by focusing on coffee-related activity rather than risk exposure. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Missouri Highway & Transportation Commission, 287 S.W.3d 671 (Mo. banc 2009) (strict construction; injury must arise from work-related risk not equally exposure in normal life)
- Pile v. Lake Regional Health System, 321 S.W.3d 463 (Mo.App.2010) (Pile test for relatedness of hazard to employment; first determine work-relatedness, then equal-exposure analysis)
- Kasl v. Bristol Care, Inc., 984 S.W.2d 852 (Mo. banc 1999) (prior interpretation of arising out of and in the course before 2005 amendment)
- Drewes v. TWA, 984 S.W.2d 512 (Mo. banc 1999) (prior interpretation of arising out of and in the course before 2005 amendment)