“Even if we were to assume that the petitioner was negligent in
choosing to drive and in falling asleep while doing so, barring recovery on
that basis would be contrary to the remedial purpose of the workers’
compensation law.”
APRIL 20, 2015
The New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled in March that a worker
who fell asleep while driving a company truck and hit a utility pole in the
course of his employment is entitled to workers’ compensation benefits for the
severe injuries he sustained in the crash.
The court’s ruling overturns the decision by the New Hampshire
Compensation Appeals Board (CAB) to deny the petitioner’s claim.
The petitioner, Brandon Kelly, was an employee of Advanced
Sheet Metal in Hudson, New Hampshire. His job involved traveling to job sites
in a company truck. The court records show that on March 16, 2012, after
working at a job site in Massachusetts, the petitioner departed for the company
shop based in Hudson where he planned to unload the truck.
While driving, however, he fell asleep and hit a utility
pole. As a result of the accident, his lower leg was amputated.
The petitioner sought workers’ comp benefits. After the
respondent, Arbella Insurance Company, denied his claim, a hearing was held before
the New Hampshire Department of Labor, which awarded benefits. The respondent
then appealed to the CAB, which, in a 2-1 decision, denied the petitioner’s
claim.
The CAB said in its ruling that it was undisputed that the
petitioner was acting in the course of his employment at the time of the
accident, and that the accident occurred because he fell asleep while driving.
However, the CAB ruled that the injuries did not arise out of his employment.
The CAB said it found that the injury was caused by a “mixed
risk,” but that the petitioner failed to prove that “whatever abnormal
weariness, if any, [he] might have been suffering that day was caused by his
employment.” The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and the
appeal to the New Hampshire Supreme Court followed.
The New Hampshire Supreme Court disagreed with the CAB’s
ruling by stating that there can be no question that the injurious effects of
falling asleep were increased by the environment in which the petitioner found
himself at the time he fell asleep — behind the wheel of a moving truck.
“We have no difficulty concluding on this record, as a
matter of law, that the petitioner’s employment was a substantial contributing
factor to the injury,” the high court stated.
The court stated that although not all injuries resulting
from mixed risks are compensable, the concurrence of a personal risk and an
employment risk does not necessarily defeat compensability if the employment
was also a substantial contributing factor to the injury.
The court said its ruling also promotes the remedial purpose
of the workers’ compensation law.
This was not a case involving an employee’s disease or
internal weakness, the court noted.
“Rather, this case involves a tired employee who fell asleep
while driving a company truck to the company shop in order to unload the truck,
all within the course of his employment,” the court said. “Even if we were to
assume that the petitioner was negligent in choosing to drive and in falling
asleep while doing so, barring recovery on that basis would be contrary to the
remedial purpose of the workers’ compensation law.”
“Accordingly, we reverse the CAB’s ruling that the
petitioner’s injury did not arise out of his employment and remand for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion,” the court ruled.
The case is Appeal of Brandon Kelly, New Hampshire
Compensation Appeals Board No. 2013-867, The Supreme Court of New Hampshire
opinion issued on March 20, 2015.