What Do You Think: Could Worker who Injured Finger in Parking Lot Collect WC Benefits?

Logan, OH (WorkersCompensation.com) – Whether an injury in a company parking lot is compensable is a tricky question that may hinge on a variety of factors, including what the worker was doing when the injury happened. 

An Ohio court recently tangled with that issue in the case of a factory worker who broke her pinky in her company’s lot by accidentally closing her car door on the finger. 

The factory worker had parked her vehicle in the lot closest to the factory and exited her truck carrying her lunch box and a bag of the company’s flame-retardant jackets, which she had taken home to wash. 

A coworker parked next to her and they began to talk about a tough shift the employee had covered for the coworker a week earlier. At that point, the employee closed her truck door, accidentally shutting it on her pinky. 

As a result of the fractured finger, she suffered a staph infection, and then developed a liver disorder due to antibiotics used to treat the infection. 

She sought workers’ compensation benefits. 

The company challenged a trial court’s determination that the worker suffered a compensable injury under state law. 

In Ohio, as in most states, an injury is compensable if it occurred in the course of, and arising out of, employment.  

The “in the course of” prong relates to the time, place, and circumstances of the injury, the court explained. It limits compensation to employees injured while engaged in a required employment duty or activity related to the employer's business. This prong is satisfied if the worker is in the “zone of employment,” which includes the means of entering and exiting the area, if under control of the employer. 

The “arising out of” prong refers to the causal connection between the employment and the injury. Whether there is sufficient causal connection depends on the totality of the circumstances, including: 1) the proximity of the scene of the accident to the place of employment, 2) the degree of control the employer had over the scene of the accident, and 3) the benefit the employer received from the injured employee's presence at the scene of the accident. 

Was the employee’s fractured pinky compensable?  

A. No. Her presence in the lot, and her actions at the time, provided only minimal benefit to the employer.

B. Yes. She was in a lot controlled by the company and she had to cross the lot in order to get to work. 

If you picked A, you agreed with the court in Hinerman v. Savant Systems, No. 21CA14 (Ohio Ct. App. 08/16/2022). 

The court acknowledged that the injury occurred in the zone of employment, and therefore occurred in the course of the factory worker’s employment.  The court observed that the worker was injured in a lot which the company owned and controlled and which provided the only way of getting to and from the factory where she worked. 

However, the injury did not arise out of her employment, the court held. The court noted that the company received little benefit from the worker’s presence there, given that she had not yet arrived at the place her work was to be performed. Further, she did not injure herself while crossing the lot. She injured herself closing her door -- which was not a necessary incident to her work. Nor was this a case where the employee injured herself due to a physical characteristic of the parking lot that was hazardous, or while driving through the lot. Instead, “[s]he was injured due to her efforts to protect her personal property in a location where her presence provided little benefit to her employer,” the court wrote. 

The court added that the fact that the worker was conversing with a colleague about work did not support a finding that the injury arose from her employment. “Even if [the employee] had been distracted by the conversation, it was of a personal nature. [She]  was telling the coworker about how difficult a past shift had been—information which in no way furthered [the company’s] business,” the court wrote. 

Holding that the employee lacked a compensable injury, the court reversed the trial court’s ruling in her favor. 

Forms, email updates, legal, regulatory, and compliance information from Ohio and 52 other jurisdictions across the U.S. can be found on WorkCompResearch.com.