Riverside Regional Jail Authority & VML Insurance Programs v. Morrissa Dugger
68 Va. App. 32
| Va. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Morrisa Dugger, a correctional officer, sought workers’ compensation for a right knee injury allegedly sustained during mandatory defensive-tactics training on September 22, 2015.
- During a four-hour training session involving simulated fights and takedowns, Dugger testified she was "tossed around" and felt knee pain as she walked away from the physical portion; she sought treatment the same day and was diagnosed with a right knee sprain and later an asymptomatic torn meniscus.
- A deputy commissioner found Dugger credible, concluded she sustained an "injury by accident" during the training, and awarded medical benefits; the full Commission affirmed on review.
- Employer (Riverside Regional Jail Authority and VML Insurance Programs) appealed, arguing the injury was due to repetitive movements, lacked a definite onset during the training, and no identifiable precipitating incident was shown.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed factual findings for credible-evidence support and treated the ultimate question of whether those facts satisfied the legal definition of "injury by accident" as a mixed question (facts binding; legal application reviewed).
- The court affirmed the Commission, holding the training constituted an identifiable incident with sufficient temporal precision and a structural bodily change (torn meniscus) causally linked to work activity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dugger suffered an "injury by accident" under Va. Code § 65.2-101 | Dugger: injury occurred during discrete defensive-training exercises; felt pain immediately after; medical records link work to knee sprain/meniscus tear | Employer: injury resulted from repetitive movements over the session, no immediate pain during activity, no single identifiable incident | Held: Affirmed — training was an identifiable incident over a bounded period, caused a sudden structural change and was causally connected to employment |
| Whether a multi-hour training can satisfy the "reasonably definite time"/temporal-precision requirement | Dugger: four-hour training is bounded and she felt pain immediately after so temporal link exists | Employer: four-hour span too long; resembles cumulative/repetitive trauma | Held: Four-hour session sufficiently "bounded by rigid temporal precision" (analogous to Van Buren and Hoffman) |
| Whether the injury was "repetitive trauma" (non-compensable) | Dugger: movements were varied (takedowns, tossed around) and produced a structural injury (meniscus) | Employer: activity was repetitive and gradual, akin to Morris | Held: Not repetitive trauma — facts more like Kohn/Van Buren; structural change during work activity distinguishes case from Morris |
| Whether Van Buren creates a narrow "first-responder/adrenaline" exception | Dugger: pinpointing exact moment is not required when event is a single bounded work incident | Employer: Van Buren limited to adrenaline-first-responder context; inapplicable here | Held: Court rejects a special "first-responder" exception; Van Buren clarifies circumstances where an event need not be pinned to a single instant (multiple factors suffice) |
Key Cases Cited
- Kohn v. Marquis, 288 Va. 142 (Supreme Court of Virginia) (training-related traumatic injury during defensive exercises compensable)
- Morris v. Morris, 238 Va. 578 (Supreme Court of Virginia) (repetitive trauma/gradual injuries are not "injury by accident")
- Hoffman v. Carter, 50 Va. App. 199 (Court of Appeals of Virginia) (multi-hour bounded exposure can be an identifiable incident)
- Van Buren v. Augusta Cty., 66 Va. App. 441 (Court of Appeals of Virginia) (varied rescue activity over a bounded period constituted one identifiable incident and compensable injury)