 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Lanum6/18/1996
85-86, 278 S.E.2d 877, 879 (1981) (leg injury resulting from mere act of walking while at work did not arise out of employment); Barbour, 8 Va. App. at 484, 382 S.E.2d at 306 (back injury resulting from the mere act of bending over to pick up pipe while at work did not arise out of employment).
However, an injury may be found to arise out of employment when it is occasioned by the nature of the employment itself. See Henderson, 20 Va. App. at 481, 458 S.E.2d at 303 (injury resulting from fall on normal flight of stairs arose out of employment because work required claimant to observe guard towers while descending stairs); Brown, 12 Va. App. at 244-45, 402 S.E.2d at 710-11 (1991) (injury resulting from lowering 100 pound furnace and cutting and fitting motions performed while bent over arose out of employment because such risks were encountered solely due to nature of job ); Grove v. Allied Signal, Inc., 15 Va. App. 17, 21, 421 S.E.2d 32, 34-35 (1992) (back injury resulting from bending, crouching, or squatting to perform work task arose out of employment); Shuck, 17 Va. App. at 54-55, 434 S.E.2d at 922 (neck injury resulting from tilting head back to look directly overhead to monitor fuel gauges arose out of employment).
Here, the commission relied on Shuck in finding claimant's neck injury arose out of his employment. The commission found the position claimant maintained while filing the aperture cards was unusual or awkward. Employer contends claimant's condition was not unusual since he could have found himself in the same position outside the work environment. However, the test is whether claimant's injury resulted from an exposure to risk occasioned by the nature of his employment, "notwithstanding the exposure of the public generally to like risks." Henderson, 20 Va. App. at 480, 458 S.E.2d at 303 (quoting Olsten, 230 Va. at 319, 336 S.E.2d at 894). Here, claimant maintained his "awkward" body position in order to accomplish an employment related task.
Employer further argues that other means were available to claimant for performing the task. However, the test is not whether the actual act, movement, or "body contortion" which resulted in injury might have been avoided by using other available methods to perform the work. Rather, where the injury-producing act, movement, or "contortion" is inherent in the nature of the employment, it matters not that other approaches to the task are available to the claimant.
For these reasons, we affirm the commission's decision.
Affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 Virginia Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|