Law Offices of Edward J. Singer APLC

Home » Blog » Arising Out Of And In The Course And Scope Of Employment

WAS A COP’S DEATH WORK-RELATED? INJURED WORKER IN THE NEWS, #98

Posted on October 30, 2023 by Edward Singer

While working, a Police Officer- while at his precinct- collapsed and died from fentanyl and meth poisoning. In the news reports, it is reported that the incident may not have been by accident. According to the Dailymail, “Police in Vancouver, Washington, investigated Kelly’s death and concluded that it was ‘more likely than not caused by an intentional act and not an incidental workplace exposure,’”

This article will discuss the issue within the framework of California Workers’ Compensation Law with respect to this workplace death and whether it was work-related.

If Someone Dies At the Workplace, Is It Automatically Considered As A Work-Related Death?

No. Injuries in the workplace must be AOE/COE- arising out of employment and in the course and scope of employment. While a death may occur during the course and scope of employment, i.e. while at the place of employment, there may be uncertainty as to whether it was caused by work. In this instance, illicit drug use has been implicated as to the cause of death.

What Is The Standard For Proving a Death Is Work-Related?

The Cailfornia Supreme Court in South Coast Framing, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291 [188 Cal.Rptr.3d 46, 349 P.3d 141], noted that “[w]e have recognized the contributing cause standard …Under this test, if the injury can be seen to have followed as a natural incident of the work and to have been contemplated by a reasonable person familiar with the whole situation as a result of the exposure occasioned by the nature of the employment, then it arises “out of” the employment. But it excludes an injury which cannot fairly be traced to the employment as a contributing proximate cause and which comes from a hazard to which the workman would be equally exposed apart from the employment.’””

In the instant matter, it is possible that an industrial contributing cause could be found. It is possible that, as a law enforcement officer, there may be presumptions that could apply and assist in proving an industrial injury. Thus, this fact pattern is worthy of exploring whether there was a valid industrial death claim. Thus, despite the allegation of illicit drug use and a statement from the department concerning it, there still may be a way of proving it as work-related. For instance, the officer may have been suffering from an industrial orthopedic injury and decided to self-medicate by using an illegal drug.

What If I Need Legal Advice?

If you would like a free consultation regarding workers’ compensation, please contact the Law Offices of Edward J. Singer, a Professional Law Corporation. We have been helping people in Central and Southern California deal with their workers’ compensation cases for 30 years. Contact us today for more information.

Man Threatens Wendy’s Employee With A Gun: Injured Workers in the News #70

Posted on November 23, 2022 by Edward Singer

A Wendy’s Fast Food Worker reportedly had a bad drive thru incident. A customer pulled a gun. Apparently, there was a missing sauce packet! It was reported that the man “was driving around the parking lot brandishing a gun and refusing to leave.” foxnews.com

There is no report of any physical injury. Thus, we will discuss whether this fact pattern can give rise to a workers’ compensation claim.

Can This Fact Pattern Give Rise to A Work Injury?

In California, there is no need to have a physical altercation in order to have a work injury claim. In this instance, there was an actual incident. We have a customer acting in a hostile fashion. He was reportedly brandishing a weapon and acting in a menacing fashion. If the Worker experienced a physical reaction to this event, it would be considered as a work-related event. In this matter, if the Worker had accidently not provided the customer the sauce packet, it would not be relevant. Workers’ compensation is a “no fault” system. This event would not be considered as a “good faith personnel action.” It was merely an exchange between an employee and a customer.

What Type of injury Can Be Claimed?

In California, it is possible to have both physical and psychological injuries arise from such an incident. Injuries, however, must be documented by medical specialists. In this instance, there could be a physical injury, i.e. an aggravation of a blood pressure condition. Likewise, a psychiatric disorder could be found as well, i.e. a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. It should be emphasized that the incident alone does not make a claim. There must also be an injury.

What if I Need Advice?

DID OFFICE CUSTODIAN CAUSE A STD WORK INJURY? INJURED WORKERS IN THE NEWS # 66

Posted on October 19, 2022 by Edward Singer

An Office Custodian has been accused of the unthinkable. He has been arrested under allegations that he urinated in a woman’s water and transmitted her a sexually transmitted disease.

The woman suspected something wrong with her water bottles that she had at work. She set up a hidden camera and caught the Custodian rubbing his genitals on her bottle. It is reported that he confessed. Nypost.com

Eleven others may believe they are victims as well.

It is reported that the worker contracted an STD and that the accused tested positive for the same disease. It is not clear where other workers have tested positive.

Can Sexually Transmitted Diseases Be Work-Related?

Yes. In California, Sexually Transmitted Diseases can be work-related. In this circumstance, a Psychiatric Injury claim is most likely indicated as well.

Do They Other Workers have claims?

In California, even if the individuals do not test positive for the STD, they too may have a valid psychiatric claim. This, of course, would depend upon the opinion of a mental health specialist. Their emotional upset was the result of an actual event of employment. The event being the tampering of water bottles and their knowledge of it. Developing the STD is not required to pursue this type of action.

What if I Need Advice?

WAS A MCDONALD’S WORKER BEING SHOT IN THE FACE A WORK INJURY? INJURED WORKERS IN THE NEWS, #50

Posted on August 2, 2022 by Edward Singer

In Brooklyn, a McDonald’s Worker was shot in the face. After the incident, the worker was reportedly in critical care as a result of the incident.

The facts of the case are that there was this Worker was in a dispute with a customer inside the restaurant. After the incident, the Worker, for reasons not clear, went outside of the store. There, the dispute continued. It is reported that the customer’s son shot the McDonald’s Worker in the face. Nypost.com

UPDATE: Since this post, there is additional information from a Nypost.com article. It appears that there was an initial dispute concerning cold fries. The customer’s son and the McDonald’s Worker exchanged words in the store and there was a conversation apparently about taking the matter outside. It is reported that the Worker may have gone outside to search for the customer’s son and an incident occurred.

This case will be discussed along the lines of California Law with respect to the issues.

Was This an Industrial Injury for the Purposes of Workers’ Compensation?

While a case may look like it is work-related, in order to get workers’ compensation benefits, an injury must arise out of and be in the course and scope of employment. This requires some analysis.

In this particular case, there are questions that need to be answered. Two matters of important is whether the Worker was the Initial physical aggressor and whether the Applicant deviated from employment.

Given this fact pattern, the reason why the McDonald’s Worker left the store is important. Did the Worker want to get in a fight with the customer? Did the worker initiate physical contact?

The other aspect to consider is whether there was a deviation. Did the employee’s actions remove him from being considered to be in the workplace? With this analysis, the location of the outside incident is of importance. Was it on the McDonald’s premises or off? Was it a mile away from the store? Further, was he on a break, or was he working on the clock when he went outside?

Can A Claim Like This Be Delayed?

Yes. Labor Code Section 5402(b) affords an insurance company 90 days to investigate. In this matter, given the analysis provided above, an insurance company should send an investigator out to obtain witness statements, obtain the video from the store if any, and obtain a copy of the police report. My personal impression is that the additional facts would likely support a finding of industrial injury. Without knowing more, I would think that the incident happened while on premises. The fact that the incident was on the premises would play a large factor in the analysis. [update: If the worker left the work site to have a confrontation, more facts are needed concerning what happened. The location of the confrontation and its nature are important. Further, the reason for the confrontation is important as well.

What if I Need Advice?

LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S HELICOPTER CRASH: INJURED WORKERS’ IN THE NEWS, #23

Posted on March 21, 2022 by Edward Singer

Five Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputies and one Civilian were injured when a department helicopter crashed. The vehicle was in flight to a vehicle collision scene. It reported that the injuries were not life threatening. In the copter, there were deputies including the pilot, copilot, crew chief and two paramedics. Villanueva [the Sheriff] said the sixth person on board was a UCLA doctor doing a ride-along. Sbsun.com

The fact pattern raises issues of who were employees at the time of the accident. The fact pattern also addresses the issue of different workers’ compensation benefits for different classes of employees.

Who Was An Employee In This Accident?

From the facts, it is clear that the Los Angeles County Deputies and Paramedics would be considered employees for the purposes of the accident. The question would be as to whether the UCLA doctor would be considered an employee. The facts indicate that he was doing a ride-along. Further, it would appear that the UCLA doctor was an employee of UCLA and not Los Angeles County. Thus, his employment, for the purposes of the accident, would be considered UCLA.

The next question would be whether this ride-along would be considered part of the UCLA doctor’s employment. Did the ride along arise out of and was it in the course and scope of employment? Was there a “nexus?”

A factual determination should be made as to whether the injury arise out of and was in the course and scope of employment. . Questions such as “whether the ride along had a connection to his employment?” would be of assistance. Did his department recommend that he do the ride along? Was the ride along something that he did to assist him in doing their job a doctor at UCLA? For example, “was the doctor an emergency room doctor?” Alternatively, was this something the doctor did completely independent of his job? As such, there are many facts that must be ascertained to make a decision. Ultimately the determination would likely be made at the trial level by a Judge. .

For the Employees How Are They Going to Be Paid?

In the facts, there are Deputys and Paramedics involved. Desputys are covered under Labor Code 4850 for salary continuation in lieu of total temporary disability benefits. Paramedics, howeveer, may not be covered under LC 4850. They may have to look towards their Memorandum of Understanding to determine if they have special temporary disability benefits.

What If I Need Advice?

https://www.sbsun.com/2022/03/19/la-county-sheriffs-helicopter-crashes-in-mountains-above-san-dimas-5-hospitalized/