NWCDN Members regularly post articles and summary judgements in workers’ compensations law in your state.
Select a state from the dropdown menu below to scroll through the state specific archives for updates and opinions on various workers’ compensation laws in your state.
Contact information for NWCDN members is also located on the state specific links in the event you have additional questions or your company is seeking a workers’ compensation lawyer in your state.
The employee worked as a painter for the University of Minnesota. On the date of injury, she parked at the Oak Street Ramp, a facility owned and operated by the University of Minnesota. The ramp was available to University employees and the public. The ramp was located less than three blocks from the building where the employee was working. At the end of work, the employee punched out and was walking to the parking lot at the Oak Street Ramp. Her entire route was on U of M campus premises.
The weather was bad and had been snowing and sleeting that day. The employee slipped and fell at an intersection with an incline suffering work injuries. Primary liability was denied for the injury per Dykhoff.
The Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals reversed the compensation judge’s finding that the injury did not arise out of her employment with the employer. The court distinguished the Dykhoff case in that there was no incline, the floor was not wet, and there was no debris on the floor in Dykhoff.
The W.C.C.A. noted that arising out of means that there must be some causal connection between the injury and the employment. The employment must:
1. Expose the employee to a hazard which originates on the premises as a part of the working environment; or
2. Particularly expose the employee to an external hazard whereby the employee is subjected to a greater risk than had he been pursuing ordinary personal affairs (special hazard).
The W.C.C.A. held that the special risk or special hazard doctrine applies only in those cases in which the employee is injured off the employer’s premises.
If the employee suffers a work injury on the work premises, the employee need only establish an increased risk of injury from the employment. In other words, there is an increased risk of injury on the employee’s premises because the employee is an employee and the injury follows from that risk. The court held it is irrelevant if members of the general public might encounter the same risk because they were not brought to that risk by the job.
The court cited Foley v. Honeywell which held that an injury on the employee’s premises arises out of the employment if it occurs as a result of an increased risk of injury while the employee is going from one part of the premises of the employer to another, even if it occurs on a public street.
This case has been appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court.