LORRAINE SMIEJA, Employee/Appellant, v. ST. LOUIS CO., SELF-INSURED, Employer.
WORKERS= COMPENSATION COURT OF APPEALS
JUNE 24, 2002
HEADNOTES
ARISING OUT OF & IN THE COURSE OF - SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. Where the employee essentially conceded that there was no evidence that her injuries were related to her work, although they had occurred on the work premises and during her work hours, the compensation judge=s conclusion that the employee had failed to prove that her injury arose out of her employment was not clearly erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence.
Affirmed.
Determined by Pederson, J., Rykken, J., and Johnson, C.J.
Compensation Judge: Donald C. Erickson
OPINION
WILLIAM R. PEDERSON, Judge
The employee appeals from the compensation judge=s findings that her left foot injury of November 16, 1998, and her left knee injury of March 10, 2000, did not arise out of and in the course of her employment. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
The facts in this case are essentially undisputed. Lorraine Smieja [the employee] injured her left foot on November 16, 1998, and her left knee on March 10, 2000, and she alleges that these two injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment as a nursing assistant at St. Louis County=s extended care facility, the Nopeming Nursing Home [the employer]. The employee was sixty-five years old on November 16, 1998, and on both injury dates she was earning a weekly wage of $456.20.
On November 15-16, 1998, the employee was working the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift at the employer, and took her mid-shift lunch break in a room on the employer=s premises furnished for that purpose. At the conclusion of her break, the employee arose quickly from her chair, took one or two steps, and then fell to the floor injuring, her left foot. The employee testified that she was uncertain of other details and could not explain why she fell. The injury resulted in a fracture of the employee=s fifth metatarsal, and the foot was set in a cast. The employee was unable to work because of her left foot injury from November 16, 1998, to February 15, 1999.
On March 10, 2000, the employee was walking between the east and west wings of the nursing home when she experienced severe pain in the back of her left knee. She immediately reached for and held onto a railing to keep from falling. She did not twist or strike her knee before she felt the pain, and she could offer no explanation for what brought about the pain. An MRI of the left knee taken on April 26, 2000, revealed a complete radial tear of the far posterior horn of the medial meniscus, together with associated degenerative changes. The employee subsequently underwent arthroscopic partial medial and lateral meniscectomies and patellar shaving with chondroplasty. She was unable to work because of her left knee injury from March 10, 2000, until August 15, 2000.
The employee filed a claim petition, seeking temporary total and permanent partial disability benefits. The employer denied liability for both injuries, and the matter was heard by a compensation judge at the Office of Administrative Hearings. In a Findings and Order issued August 28, 2001, the compensation judge found that, although the employee=s injuries occurred on the employer=s premises during the hours of her employment, the employee failed to sustain her burden of proving that her injuries arose out of her employment activities. Accordingly, the judge concluded that the employee was not entitled to workers= compensation benefits for either injury. The employee appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In reviewing cases on appeal, the Workers= Compensation Court of Appeals must determine whether Athe findings of fact and order [are] clearly erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted.@ Minn. Stat. ' 176.421, subd. 1 (1992). Substantial evidence supports the findings if, in the context of the entire record, Athey are supported by evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate.@ Hengemuhle v. Long Prairie Jaycees, 358 N.W.2d 54, 59, 37 W.C.D. 235, 239 (Minn. 1984). Where evidence conflicts or more than one inference may reasonably be drawn from the evidence, the findings are to be affirmed. Id. at 60, 37 W.C.D. at 240. Similarly, A[f]actfindings are clearly erroneous only if the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.@ Northern States Power Co. v. Lyon Food Prods., Inc., 304 Minn. 196, 201, 229 N.W.2d 521, 524 (1975). Findings of fact should not be disturbed, even though the reviewing court might disagree with them, Aunless they are clearly erroneous in the sense that they are manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.@ Id.
DECISION
A personal injury is defined as an Ainjury arising out of and in the course of employment.@ Minn. Stat. ' 176.011, subd. 16. Whereas the Ain the course of@ requirement essentially implies a time and place connection between the injury at issue and the normal hours and premises of the employee=s employment, the Aarising out of@ requirement essentially implies a causal connection between that injury and the work activity--although not Anecessarily in the proximate cause sense.@ Gibberd v. Control Data Corp., 424 N.W.2d 776, 780, 40 W.C.D. 1040, 1047 (Minn. 1988); see also Lange v. Minneapolis-St. Paul Metro. Airport Comm=n., 257 Minn. 54, 99 N.W.2d 915, 21 W.C.D. 61 (1959). The requisite causal connection Aexists if the employment, by reason of its nature, obligations, or incidents may reasonably be found to be the source of the injury-producing hazard.@ Nelson v. City of St. Paul, 249 Minn. 53, 55, 81 N.W.2d 272, 275, 19 W.C.D. 120, 123 (1957). The burden of proving that a personal injury has arisen out of the employment is on the employee. Minn. Stat. ' 176.021, subd. 1.
In the memorandum accompanying his Findings and Order, the compensation judge discussed the employee=s burden of establishing the necessary work connection between her injuries and her employment activities. The judge concluded that,
In this case, the employee=s proof put her on the employer=s premises; however, there was very little, if any evidence, adduced that tied the injuries to the employee=s employment activities. Her foot injury occurred somehow when she got up from a table in the break room after falling asleep. Her knee injury occurred while walking down a level hall and is not an injury caused by an increased risk due [to] the employment. The Compensation Judge finds this evidence insufficient to sustain the employee=s burden of proof that the injuries arose out of the employee=s work activities.
On appeal, the employee contends that the instant case is indistinguishable from Duchene v. Aqua City Irrigation, 58 W.C.D. 223 (W.C.C.A. 1998), in which this court concluded that the Aarising out of@ element of the work connection test had been met where the employee sustained an unexplained knee injury while engaged in activities at the employer=s work site and incidental to his employment. Citing Duchene, the employee argues that the compensation judge should have applied the Apositional risk@ test rather than the Aincreased risk@ test, as discussed below, to determine whether her injuries arose out of her employment. She contends that her employment placed her in a position where she was injured by some Aneutral risk,@ meaning by the word Aneutral@ neither personal to her nor distinctly related to her employment. In such a case, the employee contends, where there is no explanation for her injuries and no showing they were either related to her work or personal to her, the requirement that the injury have its Aorigin@ or Asource@ in the employment is satisfied by the injury=s simply having occurred while she was at work. We are not persuaded.
In Bohlin v. St. Louis Co., Nopeming Nursing Home, 61 W.C.D. 69 (W.C.C.A. 2000), summarily aff=d (Minn. Jan. 16, 2001), this court reviewed Minnesota case law and discussed, at length, the increased risk test and the positional risk test. The court concluded that the Duchene decision does not support the unqualified application of a positional risk test in cases which do not involve a truly neutral risk. In Bohlin, the court cited as examples of neutral risks the risks of being struck by lightening, a stray bullet, or a car and the risk of a random assault. The court noted that such risks are truly neutral Ain that each is clearly neither a risk inherent in the employment nor a risk personal to the employee.@ Bohlin, 61 W.C.D. at 76. In the instant case, the risks or hazards of a fractured metatarsal or of a torn meniscus are not neutral, and we decline to apply the positional risk test to the facts of the case.
Whether the requisite causal connection exists between the work activities and the disability is a question of fact. In Bohlin, this court adopted Larson=s balancing test.[1] In any given case, a certain minimum level of work connection must be proven. Where the Acourse@ test yields a weak result but the Aarising@ test yields a strong one, the required quantum of work connection may be met. Similarly, where the Acourse@ test is strong but the Aarising@ test is weak, the required work connection may also be met. Where both tests yield weak results, however, insufficient connection to the employment may exist. As this court stated in Bohlin, A[w]hen a line is drawn, there are always cases very close to each side of the line. No absolute rule can be derived, since there are too many factual variables that could affect the result.@ Bohlin, 61 W.C.D. at 81.
In the present case, the compensation judge applied the balancing test and found that the Acourse@ test yields strong results but the Aarising@ test yields weak ones. In this very close case, the judge determined that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the employee=s burden of proof that the injuries arose out of the employee=s work activities. The employee essentially conceded that there is no evidence that her injuries were related to her work. We conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the compensation judge=s decision in this matter, and, accordingly, it is affirmed. Hengemuhle v. Long Prairie Jaycees, 358 N.W.2d 54, 37 W.C.D. 235 (Minn. 1984).