Osten v. Bureau of Workers' Comp.
102 N.E.3d 1189
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Aysha Osten, a PSA Airlines flight attendant on a multi-day trip, completed a flight into LaGuardia, was assigned overnight lodging at a Hampton Inn, and was released from duty at ~12:30 p.m.
- PSA paid a travel stipend ($1.60/hr) during off-duty travel and paid regular hourly wages only during duty time; PSA provided and arranged hotel lodging per the union contract but did not control off-premises public sidewalks.
- That evening Osten and two pilots walked ~1 mile to a nearby restaurant (declining shuttle/taxi), slipped on icy public sidewalk about 30 feet from the hotel entrance, and injured her wrists and knees.
- BWC initially approved benefits, but a district hearing officer vacated that approval finding Osten was on a personal errand; the BWC staff hearing officer and trial court affirmed, granting summary judgment for PSA.
- Trial and appellate court applied the “in the course of, and arising out of” test, focusing on Lord factors (proximity, employer control over scene, employer benefit) and precedent distinguishing traveling employees from those on personal errands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Osten was "in the course of" employment when injured | Osten: traveling employee status, employer-mandated hotel, travel pay and contract emphasis on crew nourishment make the trip employment-related | PSA/BWC: she was released from duty (rest period), chose to walk, hotel/restaurant choices not controlled by PSA | Held: Osten was on a personal errand (off-duty/rest period), not in the course of employment |
| Whether injury "arose out of" employment (causal connection) | Osten: employer reasonably anticipated employees would obtain food; stipend and hotel selection connect injury to work | PSA/BWC: no control over sidewalk or transport chosen; no special hazard or employer benefit from walking off-premises | Held: No sufficient causal connection under Lord factors; employer received no cognizable benefit |
| Applicability of traveling-employee doctrine / Griffith analogy | Osten: compares to Griffith (paid during travel/encouraged to stay on premises) to argue coverage | PSA: distinguishes Griffith factual scenario; relies on Cline and other cases finding personal errand | Held: Griffith is factually distinguishable; Cline/Jobe analogies control—no coverage |
| Whether any exception (zone of employment, special hazard, totality) applies | Osten: asserts employment placed her at location and contract implied constraints | PSA: no control/special risk; risk was common to public; totality favors no coverage | Held: Exceptions do not apply; risk similar to public and totality of circumstances denies coverage |
Key Cases Cited
- Fisher v. Mayfield, 49 Ohio St.3d 275 (Ohio 1990) (explains conjunctive test “in the course of and arising out of” employment)
- Friebel v. Visiting Nurse Assn. of Mid-Ohio, 142 Ohio St.3d 425 (Ohio 2014) (discusses traveling-employee principles and personal-errand exception)
- Ruckman v. Cubby Drilling, Inc., 81 Ohio St.3d 117 (Ohio 1998) (employment duties must be consistent with contract for hire)
- Lord v. Daugherty, 66 Ohio St.2d 441 (Ohio 1981) (articulates proximity, employer control, and employer benefit factors for causal connection)
- Bralley v. Daugherty, 61 Ohio St.2d 302 (Ohio) (cited for definition of compensable injury standard)
- MTD Products, Inc. v. Robatin, 61 Ohio St.3d 66 (Ohio) (discusses "special hazard" and "but for" employment presence test)