260 P.3d 495
Or. Ct. App.2011Background
- Claimant Mary S. Sandberg, a JC Penney decorator, was injured while walking from her home toward her garage to access samples for a work task.
- Claimant stored excess fabric samples in her home garage because there was no space to store them at the studio.
- Employer required claimant to carry current fabric samples in her van and to work from home when not at the studio, making her home environment part of her work environment.
- Injury occurred the Saturday before a fabric sale change when claimant needed to replace old fabrics in her van with new fabrics stored in her garage; she fell after noticing her dog underfoot.
- ALJ and Board denied compensation, concluding the injury did not arise out of employment; the sole issue on review is whether the injury arose out of the employment, not whether it occurred in the course of employment.
- Court reverses and remands, holding the injury arose out of Sandberg’s employment and that the Board erred by not addressing the course-of-employment prong; the reconsideration is required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the injury arise out of Sandberg's employment? | Sandberg argues the risk came from the work environment and home storage required by employment. | JC Penney contends the risk was a personal/ home environment risk not connected to employment. | Yes; injury arose out of employment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Halsey Shedd RFPD v. Leopard, 180 Or. App. 332 (2002) (injury not compensable where risk is personal, not work-related, despite off-premises location)
- Jenkins v. Tandy Corp., 86 Or. App. 133 (1987) (traveling employee rule; going-and-coming rule exceptions where employer requires travel for work)
- SAIF v. Scardi, 218 Or. App. 403 (2008) (premises where work occurs can be employer's premises; home as work premises when regularly used for work)
- Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Hayes, 325 Or. 592 (1997) (two-prong work-connection test; both arise out of and in the course must be satisfied to some degree)
- Krushwitz v. McDonald's Restaurants, 323 Or. 520 (1996) (two-prong test; balance of work connection)
- Gavlik v. American Medical Response, 189 Or. App. 294 (2003) (cited for procedural/standards of review in board/workers’ comp cases)