Accidents Arising Out of the Employment in Louisiana Workers Compensation

Fullsizeoutput 3010

In the Course and Scope of Employment

In order for an employee to be covered under Louisiana workers compensation, the employee's accident must “arise out of employment” and occur “in the course of employment.”  

The phrase “scope of employment" is a simpler way of saying “arising out of the employment.”  Thus, instead of “arising out of" and “in the course of” employment,” it is often said that in workers compensation, the employee's accident must simply occur in the “course and scope" of employment. 

The "scope of the employment" (or “arising out of employment”) relates to the character or origin of the injury suffered by the employee and whether this injury was connected to the employment.  

This simply means that the workers compensation injury will not be covered unless it is related to the employment.  

Also, an injury occurs in the scope of the employment if the risk from which the injury resulted was greater for the employee than for a person not engaged in the employment. 

The “course of employment” means that the employee sustained an injury while actively engaged in the performance of his duties during work hours, either on the employer's premises or at other places where employment activities take the employee.  

Thus, the important questions for the course of employment are:

  1. When did the accident happen?
  2. Where did did the accident happen?
  3. What was the employee doing when the accident happened?

Basically, if the employee suffered an accident during work hours, or while actually doing his or her job, or at the employee's place of employment, then in all likelihood, the employee will be covered by workers compensation.

But if it is less certain that an employee is injured in the course of employment, the injury must be more clearly related to employment, or (in other words) related to the scope of the employment.

This is because, even though a work accident must both arise out of and occur in the course of employment, the two requirements - course and scope - are interrelated.  That is, if it is certain that one of the requirements exists, than it does not matter as much if the other requirement is not quite as certain. 

In the Scope of (or Arising Out of) Employment

So again, if the employee suffers an accident during work hours, or while actually doing the duties of his or her job, or while at the employee's place of employment, then the employee will be covered by workers compensation, because the employee is clearly within the course of employment. 

But is an employee who is injured during the course of her employment protected only against some accident risks and not against others?

In other words, is an employee covered under workers compensation if the employee is injured by lightning or a tornado, or assaulted by a stranger, or burned while lighting a cigarette, or breaks an arm while scuffling with a fellow worker?  

This is an important question, because generally an accident must be one that arises out of the employment as well as one that occurs during the course of the employment.

Louisiana courts have largely insisted that the risk that brought about the accident must bear some relationship to the nature of the employment.

Specifically, it ought to be good enough that the nature of the employment was such that the risk from which the injury resulted was greater for the employee than for a non-employee.

In other words, the employee's accident must be the result of some risk to which the employee is subjected in the course of his employment, and to which he would not have been subjected had he not been so employed.  

The Positional Risk Test and the Increased Risk Test

In Louisiana, the “arising out of employment” requirement is analyzed under one of two tests, depending on the circumstances of the accident and injury - the positional risk test and the increased risk test.

Basically, an accident arises out of the employment if the employee was engaged about his employer's business at the time of the accident and the necessities of the employer's business required that he be at the place of the accident at the time the accident occurred.

The character of the risk is the essential question in determining whether the accident arose out of the employment.

But the principal emphasis should be placed on where the employee was, what the employee was doing, and what called the employee to the place of the accident (factors which normally are important only in determining whether the accident occurred during the course of the employment).

So whether or not the accident arises out of the employment, can be determined by time, place, and circumstance.

The Positional Risk Test

Under the positional risk test, any risk - whether a neutral risk or a personal risk - is still considered an employment risk if the employee is exposed to that risk while performing job duties at work during working hours.  

In other words, a neutral risk can be considered an employment risk if the employee is exposed to that risk while at work. 

An example of the positional risk test is when an employee is working at a job site, and then gets hit by a tornado.  Now, technically the tornado is not an employment risk per se.  However, aside from any consideration of the original source of the risk (the tornado), the employee is covered under the positional risk test, because the employee is required to be at the place where the accident occurred.

The Increased Risk Test

The increased risk test requires that the employee show that the employee had greater exposure to the risk because of employment. 

The increased risk test only applies when the employee is not squarely in the course of employment. 

Scope of Employment: The Bottom Line

So under Louisiana law, the courts may look at the source of the risk and determine whether or not the danger was greater for the injured employee than for a non-employee.

But on the other hand, an injured employee is entitled to compensation if the employer's business required that the employee be at the place of the accident at the time the accident occurred, without reference to the origin of the risk that brought about the accident.

So at certain times the worker will be protected against virtually any risk he or she may encounter. These are the times when the employee's activities are very closely connected with the employer's business.

At other times, when the activities of the employee are barely within the employment, the employee will be protected only against risks that are closely associated with the employee's duties or with the circumstances under which the employee works. 

Examples of Workers Compensation Coverage

Louisiana courts properly consider the “arising out of” requirement, when there is doubt that the employee was in the course of employment.

Thus, Louisiana workers compensation has been denied to:

  1. An employee who had finished answering emergency service calls on a Sunday and was injured by the discharge of his shotgun as he removed it from the vehicle;
  2. An employee who was assaulted on non-working days;
  3. An employee who was assaulted while engaged in personal affairs off the premises; and
  4. An employee who deviated from a mission of fetching ice for an office party in order to steal items from the company warehouse.

These are instances in which the “arising out of” requirement was extremely weak, as was also the “in the course of” requirement.

So there is an interdependence of the positional risk test and the increased risk test. 

Simply stated, where an employee is actively at work or standing by for an immediate return to his task and thus is squarely within the course of his employment, virtually any risk will be considered as arising out of the employment, whether it is an “increased risk” or not.

But where there is some doubt about whether the employee is within the course of his employment, workers compensation will be awarded only when the employment seems to have exposed the employee to a greater risk than those to which a non-employee might have been exposed.

A Proven Record of Success

We have successfully recovered millions of dollars in settlements for our clients in personal injury claims, auto accidents, and insurance claims. The reason that our opponents settle our clients’ cases for full value is because they know we prepare all our clients’ cases for trial from the start. In fact, we are known for not being afraid to take cases to trial, and thus our opponents know they are in for a fight when going against our clients.

Putting Our Clients First

Our clients always come first. For example, that means we have a strict 24-hour communications policy, wherein our clients’ phone calls are always returned within 24 hours, if not sooner. That also means that our clients never have an issue getting through to their attorney, whether on the phone or in person. And it also means that we regularly arrange to meet with our clients at a place and time convenient for them if they cannot meet at our office during regular business hours.

Menu