Bell V. Workers Compensation Case Study

2407 Words5 Pages

The plaintiff in this action, Mr. Bell, is requesting from the Commission, to award compensation for his injury under the Worker’s Compensation Act. Mr. Bell, will be referred to as Bell, filed a workers’ compensation claim against defendant, Safe Place Children’s Home, which will be referred to as the Safe Place. Bell subsequently submitted a claim to the Safe Place human resources department and was denied. Bell’s injury is compensable because Safe Place mandated Bell’s physical presence and participation in a football game at an annual picnic which benefited Safe Place by socializing, boosting morale, and team building. An injury arises out of employment when the employee is expressly mandated at the recreational and social event and the …show more content…

Barbour Boat Works, 352 S.E.2d 690, 694 (N.C. Ct. App. 1987). The first element has already been addressed because both parties agree that the injury suffered was an accident. (Bell Aff. Ex. 6.) Therefore, in order for an injury to be compensable a plaintiff must prove the injury arose out of and in the course of employment. I. BELL SUFFERED AN INJURY WHILE AT SAFE PLACE ANNUAL PICNIC THAT AROSE FROM EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE SAFE PLACE BENIFITED FROM THE EVENT BY ATTENDING THE PICNIC, BOOSTING MORALE AND TEAM BUILDING AND THERE WAS A CAUSAL AND THERE WAS A CONNECTION BETWEEN THE INJURY AND THE EMPLOYEMENT WHICH WAS A RISK OF THE EMPLOYMENT. A. Bell’s injury arose out of employment because Safe Place benefitted from the event where Mr. Bell was expected to be and the purpose of the football game was to boost morale in addition to team building with the caregivers whom he …show more content…

Holliday v. Tropical Nut & Fruit Co., 775 S.E.2d 885, 895 (N.C. Ct. App. 2015). Additionally, the employer did not clearly inform the attendees that only their attendance, rather than physical participation in the recreational event, was mandatory. Id. Testimony by employer said attendance was mandated and followed by taking attendance. Id. Additionally, the employer testified the employee was mandated to participated by expressly stating to employees “wanted people to participate.” Id. The court reasoned since the employee was required to attend the event by their employer, the courts held the totality of the circumstances surrounding the purpose of and expectations surrounding the participation therein points in favor a determination for the employee’s injury arose from his employment.

More about Bell V. Workers Compensation Case Study

Open Document