Moore v. Venture Corp. & Travelers Indemnity Co.
343 P.3d 114
| Kan. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Shawn Moore, a road-construction equipment operator, felt right-knee pain on Oct. 15, 2011, after getting off and/or walking around a backhoe; later diagnosed with torn meniscus and ACL requiring surgery.
- Moore gave varying accounts: to insurer he said he twisted his knee while walking around the backhoe; at hearing he said his knee "popped" as he stepped down from the backhoe and he took two steps before pain increased.
- Medical opinions conflicted: an independent examiner (Dr. Jansson) and Moore’s treating/examining physician (Dr. Murati) attributed the injury to the October 15 workplace event; other physicians (including a reviewer for respondent/insurer) opined the workplace incident was not the prevailing factor.
- An administrative law judge denied benefits, finding the injury resulted from walking (a normal daily activity) and preexisting knee condition; the Workers Compensation Appeals Board reversed, finding the injury arose out of and in the course of employment and that stepping down/walking were part of operating the backhoe.
- The employer and insurer appealed, arguing the injury was from a normal activity (walking), not an on-the-job accident, and challenging the Board’s reliance on the medical evidence and factual findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Moore’s injury "arose out of and in the course of employment" under the Workers Compensation Act | Moore: stepping off and/or walking immediately adjacent to the backhoe was part of operating equipment and thus job-related | Venture/Travelers: injury occurred while walking, a normal day-to-day activity excluded from coverage | Held: Affirmed Board — substantial evidence supports that injury occurred in context of operating the backhoe and thus arose out of employment |
| Whether walking is categorically a "normal activity of day-to-day living" that precludes coverage | Moore: walking here was connected/inherent to job duty of operating backhoe | Venture/Travelers: walking is a normal activity and injury therefore not compensable | Held: Walking is not categorically excluded; court applies Bryant test — assess whether activity was connected to or inherent in job; here it was |
| Whether there was an "accident" and whether it was the prevailing factor causing the injury | Moore: the stepping/early steps were a sudden event causing pop and injury; medical evidence supports prevailing-factor causation | Venture/Travelers: no traumatic accident shown; medical opinions dispute causation and attribute to preexisting/degenerative factors or walking | Held: Board reasonably credited Dr. Jansson and other evidence that workplace event was prevailing factor; substantial evidence supports finding of compensable accident |
| Whether the ALJ credibility/findings undermined Board’s decision | Moore: Board could reweigh and find claimant credible; evidence supported stepping-off theory | Venture/Travelers: ALJ implicitly rejected Moore’s stepping-off testimony; Board erred in reversing credibility-based factual findings | Held: Court defers to Board; ALJ did not explicitly find Moore not credible, and the Board’s contrary factual findings are supported by substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Bryant v. Midwest Staff Solutions, Inc., 292 Kan. 585, 257 P.3d 255 (Kan. 2011) (establishes that courts must examine whether the activity causing injury was connected to or inherent in job duties rather than isolating body movements)
- Scott v. Hughes, 294 Kan. 403, 275 P.3d 890 (Kan. 2012) (explains appellate review of Board factual findings and substantial-evidence standard)
- Redd v. Kansas Truck Center, 291 Kan. 176, 239 P.3d 66 (Kan. 2010) (defines substantial evidence as sufficient to support administrative findings)