Workers' Compensation Denied to EMT Worker Injured on "Fun Day"
Attorney
(866) 735-1102 Ext 645
The North Carolina Supreme Court has recently entered a judgment which reverses the North Carolina Industrial Commission and the North Carolina Court of Appeals and held that it was error to award workers' compensation benefits to an EMT (Emergency Medical Technician) who was injured while operating a go-cart at a private amusement park during a "Fun Day" for Salter Path Fire & Rescue volunteers.
The North Carolina Supreme Court has recently entered a judgment which reverses the North Carolina Industrial Commission and the North Carolina Court of Appeals and held that it was error to award workers' compensation benefits to an EMT (Emergency Medical Technician) who was injured while operating a go-cart at a private amusement park during a "Fun Day" for Salter Path Fire & Rescue volunteers.
In order to recover on a workers' compensation claim, the injured worker must show that the injury must be by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment.
Hundreds, if not thousands, of workers' compensation claims are won or lost based upon whether a specific accident arose: "out of and in the course of the employment."
This is one of those cases.
In ruling against the EMT worker, the North Carolina Supreme Court held that the employee who, on a purely voluntary basis, attends a "Fun Day" and is injured while participating therein, cannot be said to have suffered a compensable injury which arises out of and in the course of the employment. In so holding, the Supreme Court found that the defendant employer was not responsible under the workers' compensation act for the "non-compensable" injuries the EMT worker suffered during her participation in the "Fun Day" event.
The Supreme Court therefore reversed the North Carolina Court of Appeals which had affirmed the decision of the North Carolina Industrial Commission, holding that the EMT worker was entitled to recover workers' compensation benefits.
Among the factors considered by the Supreme Court when it ruled against the EMT worker were the following:
1. Participation in "Fun Day" was voluntary, although volunteers were encouraged to attend if possible.
2. Many of the EMT volunteers did not attend the event.
3. The plaintiff testified that her role at "Fun Day" was merely participatory although she did plan to personally thank the volunteers.
4. That no awards or recognitions were given at the event.
5. There were no organized discussions concerning the work or the Department.
6. The concept of "Fun Day" was a way for the community to show appreciation for the Department volunteers.
7. The costs of the event were not paid out of the Department's operating budget.
8. These costs were funded entirely by community donations and paid out of a special account.
9. The attendees did sign a roster upon arrival, however, one of the purposes of the roster was to determine the number of participants in order to calculate payment to the amusement park.
The Supreme Court pointed out that the risk of injury from a go-cart accident is not something a reasonable person would contemplate upon entering service as a volunteer EMT, as it is not a risk one would associate with the anticipated risk inherit in the job. The court found that the type of injury sustained by the claimant could more aptly be characterized as a hazard which is equally common to the general public outside of employment as an EMT.
This case points out the difficulty in predicting the outcome of some workers' compensation cases. Here, both the North Carolina Industrial Commission (which administers our workers' compensation laws) and the North Carolina Court of Appeals (our second highest appellant court in the state) found that the EMT worker's claim should be paid. However, the North Carolina Supreme Court held otherwise. If the administrative body which administers the workers' compensation laws and the highest court in the state were both incorrect in construing the law, how could one expect the injured workers of North Carolina to predict how their cases will be decided?
Workers' compensation law is very complex. The assistance of an experienced workers' compensation lawyer is needed when substantial injuries occur at work.