ERIN LINDSAY, Respondent, v. MINNEAPOLIS PUB. SCHS., SELF-INSURED ADMIN’D BY CORVEL CORP., Self-Insured Employer/Appellant, and FAIRVIEW HEALTH SERVS. – ALL ENTITIES, Intervenor.

The self-insured employer appeals from the compensation judge’s award of benefits to the injured employee.  We affirm.

The employee, Erin Lindsay, has been employed as a math teacher at Sullivan STEAM School (Sullivan), a magnet school with a focus in science, technology, engineering, arts, and math, which is part of the school district operated by the self-insured employer, Minneapolis Public Schools.^[1]

On February 8, 2023, five students in the employee’s math class asked her to play basketball with them after school.  When she arrived at the Sullivan gym, the employee was asked by the team’s coach to instead attend practice the next day.  The employee testified that she received permission from the coach and from Sullivan’s principal to play basketball with her students on February 9, 2023.  (T. 43-44.)  At the after-school practice on February 9, 2023, the employee injured her left knee during a rebounding drill with her students.

The employee suffered a complete tear of the anterior cruciate ligament which required surgical repair.  On April 27, 2023, the employee underwent reconstruction surgery with hamstring autograft performed by Dr. Jeffrey Macalena.  The employee was unable to work from April 27 to May 29, 2023.  The employee was released to return to work without restrictions by Dr. Macalena.  As of the date of hearing, the employee continued to attend physical therapy.

The employee has taught at Sullivan since 2011, with a two-year break from 2017 to 2019.  To be a successful teacher, the employee works to build a relationship based on trust with her students.  (T. 28.)  The employee believes having better relationships with her students increases student performance and grades, and makes for a well-rounded classroom.  Relationship building occurs both inside and outside of the classroom, beyond scheduled work hours, and by attending student activities.  (T. 33-35.)  At Sullivan, teachers utilize project-based learning and employ an innovative curriculum design that requires collaboration beyond standard grade levels or subject matter.  Teachers are required to spend additional time for professional development and collaboration to create an environment dedicated to student achievement. (Exs. L, G).  A teacher’s professional responsibilities include facilitating positive interactions with students, participating in shared decision-making, and engaging in continuous professional development.  (Id.)  Teachers are expected to build relationships and connections with students through interaction in and around the school.

The employee would play basketball and football with students at lunch or recess two times per week.  She attended and participated in extracurricular sport activities offered to students attending Sullivan, including soccer and basketball.  (T. 34-35.)  She also engaged the students in an arts and crafts club, organized a pie day, and facilitated a dodgeball tournament.  (T. 119.)  Her attendance and participation in these student activities were encouraged by Sullivan’s principal as a function of the school’s social emotional learning curriculum.^[2]  (T. 36-37, 76-77.) The Sullivan principal testified that teacher participation in student sports activities has a positive impact on Sullivan students.  (T. 84-86.)

At the time of her injury on February 9, 2023, the employee was not a coach of the basketball team, nor was she paid to participate in Sullivan’s basketball practice.  (T. 54.)  She was not assigned or ordered to play basketball with Sullivan’s team by the school’s principal.  Playing basketball with her students was not part of any program provided to the employee as a benefit for her health or fitness.^[3]  There would have been no impact on the employee’s employment status had she not attended the basketball practice.  (T. 63.)  The employee played basketball with her students to support Sullivan’s social emotional learning curriculum and to benefit, encourage, and make connections with her students.  The principal testified that the employee was playing basketball as part of her teaching role in the Sullivan gym by building relationships with her students when she was injured.  (T. 92-94.)

The employee claimed entitlement to workers’ compensation benefits for a work-related injury to her left knee occurring on February 9, 2023.  The self-insured employer denied the claim on the basis that the employee’s injury occurred while playing basketball, a recreational activity after work hours which was not related to her job duties as a math teacher.  (Ex. 2.)  On March 20, 2024, the case was heard by a compensation judge, who concluded that the employee’s injury arose out of and in the course of employment and rejected the self-insured employer’s argument that Minn. Stat. § 176.021, subd. 9, bars the employee’s claim.  The self-insured employer appeals.

On appeal, the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals must determine whether “the 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(3).  Substantial evidence supports the findings if, in the context of the entire record, “they 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, findings of fact should not be disturbed, even though the reviewing court might disagree with them, “unless they are clearly erroneous in the sense that they are manifestly contrary to the weight of evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.”  Northern States Power Co. v. Lyon Food Prods., Inc., 304 Minn. 196, 201, 229 N.W.2d 521, 524 (1975).

A decision which rests upon the application of a statute or rule to essentially undisputed facts generally involves a question of law which the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals may consider de novo.  Krovchuk v. Koch Oil Refinery, 48 W.C.D. 607, 608 (W.C.C.A. 1993), summarily aff’d (Minn. June 3, 1993).

The self-insured employer appeals from the compensation judge’s finding that the employee’s claim is not barred by Minn. Stat. § 176.021, subd. 9, and argues that substantial evidence fails to support the finding that the employee’s injury occurred in the course of employment.

A “personal injury” is an injury “arising out of and in the course of employment” while an employee is “engaged in, on, or about the premises where the employee’s services require the employee’s presence as a part of that service at the time of the injury and during the hours of that service.”  Minn. Stat. § 176.011, subd. 16.  Thus, “[a] compensable injury must arise not only within the time and space limits of the employment, but also in the course of an activity related to the employment.”  2 A. Larson and L. K. Larson, Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, 20-1 (2008).  The requisite causal connection “exists 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).

Whether an injury arose out of and in the course of employment is a legal question which we review de novo.  Roller-Dick v. CentraCare Health Sys., 916 N.W.2d 373, 78 W.C.D. 483 (Minn. 2018).  A determination of whether an injury occurs within a reasonable time and place is a mixed question of fact and law.  In reviewing whether factual findings support a legal conclusion, we apply the substantial evidence standard.  See Hohlt v. Univ. of Minn., 897 N.W.2d 777, 77 W.C.D. 509 (Minn. 2017); see also Keltner v. Spartan Staffing, LLC, 77 W.C.D. 755 (W.C.C.A. 2017).

The self-insured employer contends on appeal that the compensation judge erred in finding that the employee was injured in the course of her employment.  An employee’s injury is considered to have been “in the course of” employment when the injury occurs while the employee was being of service to the employer, while the employee was engaged in activities reasonably incidental to the employment, during a reasonable period beyond actual working hours, in an area considered a part of the work premises.  Blattner v. Loyal Ord. of Moose, Moose Club Lodge No. 1400, 264 Minn. 79, 117 N.W.2d 570, 22 W.C.D. 323 (1962).  The compensation judge reasoned that the employee’s injury occurred within a reasonable 30-minute period after the workday as permitted in her contract of employment, while participating in a basketball practice which advanced the self-insured employer’s interests and philosophy in building relationships and stronger academic outcomes for students, and which was reasonably incidental to her employment.  (Memo. pp. 8-9, citing Hohlt, 897 N.W.2d at 783.)  On this record, the finding of the compensation judge that the employee’s injury occurred in the course of her employment is not manifestly contrary to the evidence and is supported by evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate.  See Lagasse v. Horton, 982 N.W.2d 189 (Minn. 2022).  We affirm the compensation judge on this issue.

While it has been established that the employee’s injury arose out of and in the course of her employment, the Workers’ Compensation Act contains exceptions.  One such exception is provided in Minn. Stat. § 176.021, subd. 9, which states:

The self-insured employer appeals from the compensation judge’s determination that Minn. Stat. § 176.021, subd. 9, does not preclude coverage, arguing that the compensation judge erred in requiring as a condition precedent a direct personal benefit to the employee, adding “an essential element[sic] to the statute not found in the text.”  (App. Brief at 13, 21.)  The self-insured employer contends that the analysis must be limited to a strict reading and application of the language of the statute, and that the employee voluntarily participated in the basketball practice, which was a recreational and employer-sponsored program.  We disagree.

In concluding that Minn. Stat. § 176.021, subd. 9, did not apply, the compensation judge cited Hansen v. Wyatt Ready Mix, 44 W.C.D. 276 (W.C.C.A. 1990).  In Hansen, this court affirmed an award of benefits to an employee injured during a “Customer Appreciation Beer and Brat Party” put on by his employer, which we did not consider to be a “recreational program” within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 176.021, subd. 9.  This court stated:

Given this intention of the statute as stated in Hansen, relied upon in Ellingson v. Brady Corp., 66 W.C.D. 27 (W.C.C.A. 2005), summarily aff’d (Minn. Jan. 10, 2006), and read together with the statute’s list of health promotion programs, athletic events, parties, and picnics, it was not unreasonable for the compensation judge to consider that the basketball practice was not for the employee’s benefit.  The compensation judge concluded that the basketball practice for Sullivan students was not a recreational program sponsored to promote employee health and fitness, psychological or social well-being, or goodwill between the self-insured employer and its employees.  Rather, as the evidence shows, the basketball practice was for the benefit of the students, was part of the school’s curriculum, and furthered the self-insured employer’s interests and the school’s mission.

At the time the employee was injured, she was not participating in an employee wellness or recreational activity as contemplated as an exception to coverage under the statute.  She was playing basketball with her students in the gym after school, building and maintaining connection with them and developing goodwill and community.  She was fulfilling the identical duties and responsibilities her employer expects of her in the classroom.  A review of the totality of the circumstances in this case supports the compensation judge’s evidentiary inference that playing basketball with her students was an extension of the employee’s teaching duties and that the employee was injured while promoting student development.

The self-insured employer seeks to rigidly apply the independent terms, “voluntary,” “recreational,” and “sponsored,” in analyzing the statute.  This approach is inconsistent with the statute read as a whole, ignores context,^[4] and is contrary to the intent of the exclusion as articulated in Hansen.  We reject the self-insured employer’s argument and conclude that the compensation judge did not err in determining that Minn. Stat. § 176.021, subd. 9, does not apply.  The award of benefits to the employee is affirmed.