Practical Advice in New Jersey Workers’ Compensation
Practitioners and employers will often hear the phrase, “arising out of and in the scope of (or course of) employment.” This phrase encompasses two separate concepts: 1. Occurring in the course of employment, which refers to when the injury occurred and if it occurred at work; and 2. Arising out of employment which refers to causation and how the injury occurred and if work, and the employee’s employment and work, was a causative factor of the injury.
Sometimes there are instances where an injury may occur during work or arise out of work, but not both. An injured employee must prove both. Below are hypothetical situations where Respondent may have a good argument that the injury is not compensable as the injury does not arise out of AND occur in the course of employment.
Scenario 1: Peter, a cashier, is walking an item back to a shelf. As he is walking, his knee locks up. He does not trip or fall to the ground but he does sustain a knee sprain.
Here, there is a good argument that this injury did not arise out of employment. This is outlined in Meuse v. Egg Harbor Township Police Department, No. A-4553-90T5 (App. Div. May 6, 1992), where the Appellate court found that petitioner’s knee could have buckled at any time and it was a coincidence that the knee buckled at work. Therefore, as the work conditions had nothing to do with the knee injury, the injured worker was not entitled to benefits.
If Scenario 1 changes just slightly to a situation where something at work causes the injury, the outcome can be quite different.
Scenario 2: Peter, a cashier, is walking an item back to a shelf. As he is walking, his knee locks up. He falls to the ground, and his elbow hits a shelving unit, as well as the linoleum floor as he hits the ground and he sustains an elbow fracture from the impacts.
Here, the injured worker has a stronger argument that this is compensable as the shelving unit and the linoleum floor at work were what ultimately caused petitioner’s injury to his elbow. The employer should rely on George v. Great Eastern Food Products, 44 N.J. 44 (1965) and maintain that it is only responsible for any injury to the elbow caused by the shelf and floor at work, not any injury to the knee, which was not caused by anything at work.
Scenario 3: Tony and Rick are co-workers and are working a shift together. Tony’s life-long personal enemy, Fred, comes to their place of employment and punches both Tony and also punches Rick, who was standing in between Tony and Fred.
As to Tony, this injury does not arise out of the scope of employment, pursuant to Pittel v. Rubin Bros. Bergen, Inc., 59 N.J. Super. 531 (App. Div. 1960). While this injury did occur at work, the injury stemmed from a personal relationship that had nothing to do with work. However, as to Rick, this injury does arise out of the scope of employment. Fred had no outside personal relationship with Rick, so this attack was not personal and did arise in the scope of employment and it also arose out of employment.
Scenario 4: Tom has pre-existing high blood pressure. While attending a work meeting, he feels sudden chest pain. He is diagnosed with a myocardial infraction.
Here, the cardiac event occurred at work but was not caused by work, as Tom was just attending a meeting when the heart attack occurred. This injury did not arise out of work.
Employers should keep in mind that an injury must both arise out of and occur during the course of employment to be accepted as compensable. Injuries which are caused by a personal risk, or personal relationship, are not compensable under our statute.
