In a recent decision that shouldn’t be too surprising to those who follow workers’ comp compensability issues, the Massachusetts Supreme Court recently upheld a decision by the Department of Industrial Accidents to grant workers compensation benefits to Karen Sikorksi, a Peabody teacher injured while chaperoning high school kids on a 2004 ski trip. The City of Peabody had contested the award on the basis that she was a volunteer engaged in a recreational activity.
We’ve seen many of these cases and the decision often hinges on the voluntary nature of the activity. In this case, the city of Peabody probably thought they were well within the law in denying benefits. According to Insurance Journal, the Massachusetts legislature added a little twist to the workers’ comp statue in 1985, when it excluded “… any injury resulting from an employee’s purely voluntary participation in any recreational activity, including but not limited to athletic events, parties, and picnics, even though the employer pays some or all of the cost thereof.”
Note the adjective “purely.”
When is a volunteer really not a volunteer? Usually, when an employer encourages the employees to participate in said activity. (Everybody who has ever been an employee is likely familiar with the concept of so-called voluntary recreational activities – non-participation can be a career-limiting option.) According to reports, the Peabody school administration has historically expected teachers to become involved with the school’s extracurricular activities and, in this particular case, the school principal and the ski club adviser solicited teachers to serve as chaperones. In Sikorski’s case, the Supreme Court justices unanimously found that she was “acting in the course of her employment” and not in a recreational activity as described in the law. The court found that her responsibilities as chaperone were “…essentially the same ones teachers must exercise while working in the school building during school hours.” Chaperones were expected to supervise students both in the lodge and on the slopes.
Another common criteria that courts use is in determining whether an activity is “voluntary” is how beneficial it is to the employer and whether it furthers the employer’s interests. In this case, the court found that it did: “…the ski club’s trips benefited the city by furthering the school’s educational mission.”
Of course, nothing is ever simple with workers’ comp – there are 50 different flavors, so every state law may have its own particular nooks and crannies related to these issues. Andrew G. Simpson has an excellent article on ‘Forced Fun’ and related workers’ compensation problems, in which he discusses variations in state laws.
Other posts related to the issue of “mandatory fun”:
- Compensable Fun
- Injuries at the gym: compensability, incentives, and wellness
- When play becomes work, or the case of the traveling employee
- Think twice about mandating extracurricular activities
- Company outing? beware the flying umbrella!
- Mandatory fun: when recreational activities are compensable
Tags: case law, course and scope, Massachusetts, recreational injuries, skiing, volunteers
