Bruntz-Ferguson v. Liberty Mutual Ins.

Under the work-connection test, in order to be compensable, an injury must “arise out of” and be “in the course of” employment. Norpac Foods, Inc. v. Gilmore, 318 Or 363, 366, 867 P2d 1373 (1994).

Claimant slipped and fell off an icy curb and was injured in a common area leased by her employer. Claimant filed a claim with Employer, which was denied based on the “going and coming rule.” At the Workers’ Compensation hearing, Claimant argued the “parking lot” exception to the rule, but the ALJ determined the area was not under the control of Employer. On judicial review, Claimant assigned error to the WCB’s narrow interpretation of the “parking lot” exception. Employer argued it was not liable because the landlord had complete discretion regarding maintenance of the common area and that the snow and ice were not related to Claimant’s employment. Under the work-connection test, in order to be compensable, an injury must “arise out of” and be “in the course of” employment. Norpac Foods, Inc. v. Gilmore, 318 Or 363, 366, 867 P2d 1373 (1994). The Court held that the degree of control was satisfied by Employer because Employer had the ability to request maintenance. Additionally, the Court held snow and ice was not an “employment risk” because those conditions were not “distinctly associated” to employment but Employer could control their response to the weather. Further, WCB failed to address that Claimant had to travel to her office in order to perform her employment duties which was normal ingress, thus, related to employment. Reversed and Remanded.