Watt v. SAIF

Under ORS 656.005(7)(a), an injury is compensable if it arises out of and in the course of employment. The two prongs of the work-connection inquiry—the “arising out of” prong and the “in the course of” prong—must each be evaluated. Norpac Foods, Inc. v. Gilmore, 318 Or 363, 366, 867 P2d 1373 (1994).

Claimant sought judicial review of the Workers’ Compensation Board’s order affirming an administrative law judge’s order “upholding SAIF’s denial of her hand injury claim.”  Claimant assigned “error to the board’s determination that her injury did not arise out of the employment.”  On review, Claimant asserted that the board erred by separately addressing the “arising out of” prong and argued the determination that her injury “occurred during a personal-comfort activity satisfied that element.”  In response, Employer contended that the personal-comfort doctrine fell within the “in the course of” prong and the “arising out of prong” must still be satisfied.  Under ORS 656.005(7)(a), an injury is compensable if it arises out of and in the course of employment.  The two prongs of the work-connection inquiry—the “arising out of” prong and the “in the course of” prong—must each be evaluated.  Norpac Foods, Inc. v. Gilmore, 318 Or 363, 366, 867 P2d 1373 (1994).  The Court concluded that the board “did not err in separately addressing the ‘arising out of’ prong.”  Further, the Court found that the “arising out of” prong was not satisfied.  Therefore, the Court held that Claimant’s injury did not arise out of her employment.  Affirmed.