Randy Johnson v. Town & Country Supermarkets, Inc.

As of the date of this accident § 286.120.1 RSMo, as amended in 2005, provided, in pertinent part, as follows:

Every employer subject to the provisions of this chapter shall be liable, irrespective of negligence, to furnish compensation under the provisions of this chapter for personal injury or death of the employee by accident arising out of and in the course of the employee's employment, . . . .

The definitions of both accident and injury were significantly changed in the 2005 legislation. The definitions are set forth in § 287.020.2 RSMo and § 287.020.3 RSMo, and are as follows:

1. The word "accident" as used in this chapter shall mean an unexpected traumatic event or unusual strain identifiable by time and place of occurrence and producing at the time objective symptoms of an injury caused by a specific event during a single work shift. An injury is not compensable because work was a triggering or precipitating factor.
2. (1) In this chapter the term "injury" is hereby defined to be an injury which has arisen out of and in the course of employment. An injury by accident is compensable only if the accident was the prevailing factor in causing both the resulting medical condition and disability. "The prevailing factor" is defined to be the primary factor, in relation to any other factor, causing both the resulting medical condition and disability.

(2) An injury shall be deemed to arise out of and in the course of the employment only if:

(a) It is reasonably apparent, upon consideration of all the circumstances, that the accident is the prevailing factor in causing the injury; and

(b) It does not come from a hazard or risk unrelated to the employment to which workers would have been equally exposed outside of and unrelated to the employment in normal nonemployment life;

(3) An injury resulting directly or indirectly from idiopathic causes is not compensable;

(4) A cardiovascular, pulmonary, respiratory, or other disease, or cerebrovascular accident or myocardial infarction suffered by a worker is an injury only if the accident is the prevailing factor in causing the resulting medical condition;

(5) The terms "injury" and "personal injuries" shall mean violence to the physical structure of the body and to the personal property which is used to make up the physical structure of the body, such as artificial dentures, artificial limbs, glass eyes, eyeglasses, and other prostheses which are placed in or on the body to replace the physical structure and such disease or infection as naturally results therefrom. These terms shall in no case except as specifically provided in this chapter be construed to include occupational disease in any form, nor shall they be construed to include any contagious or infectious disease contracted during the course of the employment, nor shall they include death due to natural causes occurring while the worker is at work.

In addition to these definitions the legislature also provided the following additional legislation contained in § 287.020 .10 which is as follows:

In applying the provisions of this chapter, it is the intent of the legislature to reject and abrogate earlier case law interpretations on the meaning of or definition of "accident", "occupational disease", arising out of", and in the course of the employment" to include, but not be limited to, holdings in: Bennett v. Columbia Health Care and Rehabilitation, 80 S.W. 3d 524 (Mo.App. W.D. 2002); Kasl v. Bristol Care, Inc., 984 S.W.2d 852 (Mo.banc 1999); and Drewes v. TWA, 984 S.W.2d 512 (Mo.banc 1999) and all cases citing, interpreting, applying, or following those cases.

Due to the extensive changes made to the Workers' Compensation Act by the General Assembly in 2005, the Commission is of the opinion that it is imperative that the basic premise of the Workers' Compensation Law be first considered, prior to reaching conclusions pertinent to the instant case.

Among its many features, the Workers' Compensation Act provides: (1) benefits to employees who sustain personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment; and (2) negligence and fault are largely immaterial. Section 287.120.1 RSMo.

The construction of the phrase "arising out of and in the course of employment" historically has been broken in half, resulting in a two-prong test, with the "arising out of" portion construed to refer to causal origin, and the "course of employment" portion to the time, place and circumstances of the accident in relation to the employment. The substantive provisions of section 287.120 .1 were not changed or amended by the 2005 enactment of the General Assembly.

Pursuant to this statute proof of a compensable injury requires not only establishing that it occurred at a particular place, and at a particular time (the in the course of component) the injury must also be causally connected to some risk or hazard of the job (the arising out of employment component).

The second prong of the above mentioned two-prong test, whether the injury arose "in the course of" employment, is not in dispute in the instant case. The injury occurred within the period of employment at a place where the employee could reasonably be expected and while engaged in the furtherance of the employer's business.

The first prong, "arising out of", the test primarily concerned with causal connection, is the dispositive issue in this case.

Historically, at a minimum, our courts have required a showing that the employee's injury was caused or due to a risk of employment. Missouri cases have uniformly held that an accident and resultant injury "arise out of" the employment when there is a causal connection between the conditions under which the work was required to be performed and the resulting injury. The injury "arises out of" the employment so long as the injury was a rational consequence of a hazard connected with the employment.

Generally speaking, all risks causing injury to an employee can be brought within three categories: risks distinctly associated with the employment; risks personal to the employee; and "neutral risks", i.e., risks having no particular employment or personal character. Harms from the first category are universally compensable; harms from the second are universally non-compensable; and harms from the third result in controversy.

Various lines of interpretation of the phrase "arising out of" have historically risen of which three are the increased risk doctrine, the actual risk doctrine and the positional risk doctrine.

The increased risk doctrine, in summary fashion, requires that the distinctiveness of the employment risk can be contributed by the increased quantity of a risk that is qualitatively not peculiar to the employment.

As to the actual risk doctrine, whether the risk was also common to the public is of no concern, if it were a risk of the employment. The employment subjected employee to the actual risk that caused the injury.

The positional risk doctrine determines that an injury arises out of the employment if it would not have occurred but for the fact that the conditions and obligations of the employment placed employee in the position where he was injured.

Consequently, since risks distinctly associated with the employment fall readily within the increased risk doctrine, they are considered to arise out of the employment. As to risks personal to an employee, the origins of harm are personal and cannot possibly be attributable to employment.

However, neutral risks are defined as being neither distinctly employment nor distinctly personal in character. Furthermore, the cause is unknown, unexplainable or happenstance; known, but not associated with employment or the employee personally. In these types of risks, an award of benefits can only be justified by accepting the but for reasoning of the positional risk doctrine.

As previously mentioned, the legislature, in 2005, redefined the words accident and injury. Section 287.020.2 and section 287.020.3. In addition the legislature specifically abrogated certain earlier case law interpretations concerning the meaning of accident, as well as out of and in the course of employment. Section 287.020.10

RSMo. All three of the cases referred to in the statute that were abrogated have one component in common, i.e., it was difficult, or impossible, to ascertain where or if the employment subjected the employee to some risk or hazard greater than that to which an employee regularly experiences in everyday life. In other words,