Rolsen v. Walgreen Co.
2016 Ohio 8304
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Thomas J. Rolsen, a Walgreens store manager, received a voluntary pneumonia vaccination at his workplace during work hours and suffered an adverse reaction resulting in cellulitis.
- Walgreens offered vaccinations to the public and allowed employees to receive them free, but employees were not required to be inoculated as a condition of employment.
- Rolsen filed a workers’ compensation claim; the Industrial Commission denied benefits on the ground the vaccination was a personal decision and not in the course of employment.
- Rolsen administratively appealed and then sued in common pleas court; the trial court granted summary judgment for Walgreens, concluding the injury was not in the course of employment as a matter of law.
- The only evidentiary material in the record on appeal was Rolsen’s affidavit; Walgreens did not dispute those facts, so the legal question was the proper application of law to undisputed facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an injury from a voluntary, on-site vaccination is "in the course of employment" | Rolsen: voluntary inoculation during work hours at employer’s facility gives rise to compensable injury; court should apply Lord/Fisher totality test | Walgreens: vaccine was a personal decision/errand not required by employment; Ahern controls and bars compensation | Held: Not in the course of employment — Ahern controls; voluntary personal errand outside course of employment |
| Whether summary judgment was improper because factual issues remained | Rolsen: genuine issues of material fact exist; court failed to liberally construe workers’ comp statutes | Walgreens: facts undisputed (based on Rolsen’s affidavit); only legal issue remains | Held: Summary judgment proper — facts undisputed and law applies to those facts |
| Whether the Lord/Fisher multifactor test must be applied | Rolsen: Lord totality test should govern whether injury arose out of employment | Walgreens: application of tests is fact-specific; Ahern remains binding precedent | Held: Lord/Fisher analysis is not mandatory here; Ahern remains controlling and dispositive |
| Whether employer encouragement/benefit makes the vaccination compensable | Rolsen: employer benefits (reduced absenteeism) and encouragement make injury compensable | Walgreens: incidental employer benefit does not transform a personal medical choice into employment duty | Held: Incidental employer benefit/encouragement insufficient; injury remains personal and noncompensable |
Key Cases Cited
- Indus. Comm. v. Ahern, 119 Ohio St. 41 (Ohio 1928) ("in the course of employment" means injury in performance of a required act done directly or indirectly in service of the employer; personal errands are noncompensable)
- Lord v. Daugherty, 66 Ohio St.2d 441 (Ohio 1981) (announced a multifactor totality test for "arising out of" inquiries)
- Fisher v. Mayfield, 49 Ohio St.3d 275 (Ohio 1990) (workers’ comp claims are fact-specific; avoid rigid tests; Lord factors not mandatory)
- Comer v. Risko, 106 Ohio St.3d 185 (Ohio 2005) (standard for appellate review of summary judgment)
- Marusa v. Erie Ins. Co., 136 Ohio St.3d 118 (Ohio 2013) (Civ.R. 56 summary judgment standard)
- Kohlmayer v. Keller, 24 Ohio St.2d 10 (Ohio 1970) (employee need not be performing duties at moment of injury to be in course of employment; personal pursuits are excluded)