Lisa Stegman v. Grand River Regional Ambulance District

Workers' Compensation Law, I believe the decision of the administrative law judge should be reversed. I believe the administrative law judge erred in concluding that employee failed to meet her burden of proof that she was in the course of employment at the time of the accident.

Employee went on-call as a certified EMT at 5:00 p.m. on March 31, 2002. After employee went on-call, she received a page while she was at home. Employee began to respond to the emergency which was a high priority call. At that point employee began to receive her regular hourly wage from employer. Employee ran back to her bedroom to change clothes and proceeded to the garage attached to her house to get her shoes. After she put on her shoes, she was on her way to her vehicle when she twisted her right knee and fell. Employee testified that she was moving as quickly as possible to get to the accident scene. Employee was unable to go to the accident scene because of the injury to her right knee. Employee was taken immediately to the hospital for treatment.

In order to be compensable under Missouri Workers' Compensation Law, an employee's injury must arise out of and in the course of his employment. § 287.120.1 RSMo; Custer v. Hartford Ins. Co., 174 S.W.3d 602, 610 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005). There are two separate tests for the terms "out of" and "in the course of" both of which must be met in order for the employee to be entitled to compensation. Id. "The general rule is that an injury is one that 'arises out of' the employment if it is a natural and reasonable incident thereof and it is 'in the course of employment' if the action occurs within a period of employment at a place where the employee may reasonably be fulfilling the duties of employment." Id.

The court in Seal v. Bogalusa Community Med. Ctr., 764 So.2d 968 (La. App. 2000) found that because employee "was still in his residence at the time of the accident is not dispositive of the issue of whether or not he was in the course and scope of his employment. At the time of the accident, he had been required by his employer to return to work and was being compensated by his employer. Clearly, Seal was under his employer's control. Therefore, considering the character or origin of the risk in this case along with the time and place relationship between the risk and the employment, we find that the injury arose out of and in the course of his employment." Id. at 969.

As in Seal, employee was required to respond to the emergency call and being compensated by employer as soon as she responded to her pager. Responding to the emergency was an integral part of the service provided by employee. There is no doubt that employee was responding to the emergency call when she was injured. Responding to the emergency call was part of employee's duties as an on-call EMT. When on-call, employee was required to have her pager on her at all times. She was at home when her pager alerted her of the emergency. Employee immediately responded to the call and her response immediately placed her on duty. Employee was heading to her vehicle, reasonably fulfilling the duties of her employment, when she was injured. Employee's car was parked in the garage and it was necessary for her to be there to get to her vehicle. Therefore, the fact that the injury occurred inside employee's garage does not negate the fact the employee was in the course of employment at the time of her injury. The moment employee began to respond to the emergency call; she began performing the duties of her employment. Therefore, any injury associated with the response to the emergency call would be within the course of employment.

Furthermore, it is in the public interest to encourage emergency personnel to hurriedly respond to emergencies. Given the nature of the employment, it is imperative for such individuals to move as quickly as possible. To limit the scope of coverage would deter on-call employees from rushing due to the fear of injury.

In this case, employee's response to the emergency call placed her on duty. Because employee incurred injury while responding to the emergency call, i.e., performing the duties of her employment, she is entitled to benefits.

Employee has met her burden by establishing that she was in the course of employment at the time of her accident. Accordingly, I would reverse the decision of the administrative law judge and award compensation.

For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent from the decision of the majority of the Commission to deny compensation.

1. Are any benefits awarded herein? No.
2. Was the injury or occupational disease compensable under Chapter 287? No.
3. Was there an accident or incident of occupational disease under the Law? Yes.
4. Date of accident or onset of occupational disease: March 31, 2002.
5. State location where accident occurred or occupational disease was contracted: King City, Gentry County, Missouri.
6. Was above employee in employ of above employer at time of alleged accident or occupational disease? Yes.
7. Did employer receive proper notice? Yes.
8. Did accident or occupational disease arise out of and in the course of the employment? No.
9. Was claim for compensation filed within time required by Law? Yes.
10. Was employer insured by above insurer? Yes.
11. Describe work employee was doing and how accident occurred or occupational disease contracted: Employee, a paramedic, was in the garage attached to her home when, while stepping around the front of an extended cab pickup truck, she twisted her right knee and fell backwards onto a bicycle at a time when she was responding to an emergency ambulance call.
12. Did accident or occupational disease cause death? No Date of death? N/A.
13. Part(s) of body injured by accident or occupational disease: Not determined.
14. Nature and extent of any permanent disability: Not determined.
15. Compensation paid to-date for temporary disability: None.
16. Value necessary medical aid paid to date by employer/insurer? None.
17. Value necessary medical aid not furnished by employer/insurer? None.

1. Employee's average weekly wages: $\ 467.96.
2. Weekly compensation rate: $\ 311.97 for temporary disability and $\ 311.97 for permanent partial disability.
3. Method wages computation: By agreement.

Amount of compensation payable: None.

1. Second Injury Fund liability: None.

TOTAL: None.

1. Future requirements awarded: None.

Employee: Lisa M. Stegman Injury No.: 02-030431

Employer: Grand River Regional Ambulance District

Insurer: Missouri Rural Services Workers' Compensation Insurance Trust.

Additional Party: North Kansas City Hospital (Medical fee provider)

(MFD No.: 02-00159)

Additional Party: NwMo Emer Physicians (Medical fee provider)

(MFD No.: 02-00717)

A Hearing for Final Award was held at the Missouri Division of Workers’ Compensation, St. Joseph office on November 7, 2006. Lisa Stegman ("Claimant") appeared in person and with her counsel, Robert E. Douglass. Attorney Paul D. Huck was present representing Missouri Rural Services Workers’ Compensation Insurance Trust ("MRSWCIT and/or the Trust"). Attorney Mario Mandina was present on behalf of North Kansas City Hospital’s ("NKCH") direct pay medical fee request. At the beginning of the hearing, attorney John Warren, attorney for Heartland Regional Medical Center, appeared by speaker telephone and informed the Administrative Law Judge and the parties and attorneys present in the courtroom, that Heartland Regional Medical Center had been paid in full in connection with its direct pay medical fee request, and attorney Warren made an oral Motion to Withdraw Heartland Regional Medical Center's direct pay medical fee request. Attorney Warren's Motion was sustained by the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"), and the medical fee request of Heartland Regional Medical Center was ordered withdrawn. Attorney Warren's telephone call then terminated, and he participated no further in the hearing.

Although duly notified of the hearing, neither NwMo Emer Physicians, nor their attorney, Henry Griffin, appeared in connection with NwMo Emer Physicians’ direct pay medical fee request. Although duly notified of the hearing, there was no appearance, either in person or by attorney, on behalf of direct pay medical fee request of Eckerd Pharmacy. Attorney Franklin Foster, who is entered as attorney for Employer, did not appear in person or by phone. Todd Stegman, husband of Claimant, was also present during the hearing.

The parties entered into certain stipulations and agreements as to the evidence and issues to be presented at this Hearing.

The parties agreed that Proposed Awards be submitted on or before December 1, 2006.

The parties stipulated:

1. On or about March 31, 2002, Grand River Regional Ambulance District ("Employer") was an employer operating under the provisions of the Missouri Workers' Compensation law.
2. Emp