Can Construction Laborer get Benefits for On-the-job Heart Attack?

What Do You Think?

Casper, WY (WorkersCompensation.com). An employee who suffers a heart attack at work may or may not be able to obtain workers’ compensation benefits for the injury. Whether he can secure benefits hinges in part on state law. But as a Wyoming case shows, it may also depend on how the employer wrote the employee’s job description. 

A case involving an employee for a company that provided traffic control for road construction projects shows how important it can be for employers in Wyoming and other states to create an appropriate job description that identifies the type of exertion an employee might need to engage in as part of the job.

The company hired the employee as a “laborer/flagger/pilot,” according to a human resources document. That document stated he would need to be able to lift 50 pounds.

On the day in question, the laborer’s supervisor instructed him to remove dirt and ice from the poles used for signs. The supervisor later testified that the sign crew normally brought clean signs, but if the signs were not clean, then cleaning them was a task a laborer such as the claimant could be expected to complete.The supervisor also testified that the activity was not an overexertion compared to other job duties for laborers or flaggers.

Following his supervisor’s instructions, the laborer drilled into the poles, each of which weighed 20 pounds, to loosen the debris. Then he swum them in the air and hit them on the ground, per his supervisor’s demonstration. He began feeling weak and went to the hospital, where doctors determined that he had suffered a heart attack at work.

The Office of Administrative Hearings denied the claim, finding that the employee failed to show his work exertion was unusual or abnormal. The employee appealed.

Wyoming's workers' compensation benefits are available for employment-related heart attacks that occur independent of another workplace injury if the employee shows that:

1. The heart attack occurred within four hours of the work event; 
2. The employee suffered an "actual period of employment stress clearly unusual to or abnormal for employees in that particular employment, irrespective of whether the employment stress is unusual to or abnormal for the individual employee;" 
3. The causative exertion occurred during that period; and 
4. Medical causation. 

Was cleaning and swinging sign poles "unusual" or "abnormal"?

A. No. The activity of cleaning the sign poles, even if he had not done it before, was the type of work the employee and other laborers could be expected to perform.

B. Yes. Because the employee didn’t normally clean sign poles and swing them through the air, this was an unusual or abnormal activity for him.

If you selected A, you agreed with the court in Gray v. State of Wyoming, No. S-24-0024 (Wyoming  08/27/24). The Supreme Court found that the laborer failed to satisfy the second element of his claim by showing he was engaging in an unusual or abnormal task, given his job title, the testimony, and the human resources document.

The second element of the claim is an objective test, the court explained, “that looks at the general class of employment, not the subjective job expectations for that employee.” 

Here, the employee didn’t show he was exerting himself in any unusual or abnormal way given his position. The human resources document and the testimony showed that the activities were consistent with the duties of similarly-situated employees. The court particularly noted that the laborer was expected to be able to lift up to 50 pounds as part of his job.

The court affirmed the hearing officer’s denial of benefits.

Share This Article: