Walsh v. Princeton 130 Supply Corp., Docket No. A-6083-07T3, 2009 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1644 (App. Div., June 23, 2009)

The "Benefit to the Employer" rule: under what circumstances will an injury sustained during nonworking hours be found compensable?

The petitioner was employed as a full-time driver for the respondent, a janitorial supply company, whose sole proprietor and president was John Astrab. The petitioner was responsible for delivering janitorial supplies to the respondent's customers in the New York and New Jersey area. The petitioner had substantial flexibility in developing his own work schedule but was required to make all deliveries within one business day of the date on which the order was placed. The petitioner typically worked Monday through Friday from approximately 5:30AM until his deliveries were completed at about 1:30PM. Though the petitioner routinely performed work on the weekends in preparation for the following week's deliveries, he was only compensated for the hours that he worked on the weekdays. Astrab did, however, provide the petitioner with a key to the respondent's premises, which enabled the petitioner to enter the facility when it was closed. On the morning of Sunday, January 13, 2008, the petitioner was at work to review orders for the coming week and prepare his truck for deliveries. Upon arriving, the petitioner turned on the lights and proceeded up the stairs to the company's offices on the second floor. As he reached the first landing, the petitioner tripped and struck his head on the stairs. He began to bleed and was unable to move due to a muscular paralysis. The petitioner was found several hours later by a colleague and was ultimately transported by helicopter to Robert Wood Johnson Hospital where he underwent emergency surgery of the neck. Although the petitioner regained much of the use of his lower extremities, he was left with permanent restrictions in his right shoulder and right side and was unable to return to gainful employment. The petitioner filed a claim with the Division of Workers' Compensation. At trial, Astrab testified that he had never requested that his drivers come in on weekends. However, he did indicate that he required all deliveries be made the next business day after the order was placed and allowed his drivers the flexibility in determining how best to accomplish this goal. The judge of compensation found that the petitioner had been at work on the day of the accident in an effort to prepare orders so that the company's promise of next-day delivery would be met. Accordingly, he concluded that the petitioner was entitled to benefits because he was in the course of employment at the time of his fall on the company's stairs and that his injuries arose out of work activities. The respondent appealed. In affirming the judge of compensation's ruling, the Appellate Division relied on Coleman v. Cycle Transformer Corp., 105 N.J. 285 (1986) and its progeny. In Coleman, the Court held that in order to be entitled to compensation under the Workers' Compensation Act, N.J.S.A. 34:15-1 et seq., a claimant must show a time-and-place nexus between his employment and the accident and must demonstrate a causal connection between the employment and the accident itself. As to the first prong, the Appellate Division found that the petitioner had adequately met his burden of proof as there was no evidence that he was present on-site at the time of the accident for any other reason than to work. In fact, Astrab himself testified at trial that he had no reason to suspect that the petitioner was at the office that day for personal reasons. The Appellate Division also found that the second prong had been satisfied as the record clearly demonstrated that the petitioner was in furtherance of his employment responsibilities at the time of the accident. The Appellate Division attributed great weight to the judge of compensation's findings that the petitioner's presence at work on the day of the incident was of benefit to his employer. "Petitioner's expediency promoted the company's credo to its customers that next-day deliveries would be guaranteed," the Appellate Division reasoned. "As his employer benefited from the unpaid weekend hours that petitioner devoted at the workplace, the judge of compensation had ample grounds to conclude that petitioner's injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment."

Case Law Alert - 1st Qtr 2010