Perry v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division
134 P.3d 1242, 2006 Wyo. LEXIS 63, 2006 WY 61 (2006)
Rule of Law:
An employee is acting outside the scope of employment and is ineligible for worker's compensation benefits if they are injured while knowingly violating a specific, express employer safety restriction that prohibits a specific task.
Facts:
- Eleanor Perry began working as a certified nurse assistant (CNA) for Mountain Towers Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center.
- During her orientation, Perry was instructed on a specific policy prohibiting employees from performing a 'two-person lift' on patients alone; she signed a document acknowledging this policy and the risk of termination for violating it.
- Perry was working a night shift that was arguably understaffed when a patient classified as a 'two-person lift' requested assistance to use the bathroom.
- Perry sought help, but the other CNA was occupied and the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) refused to assist.
- To assist the patient, Perry attempted the transfer alone in violation of the facility's policy.
- During the transfer, the wheelchair moved, and Perry twisted her back while attempting to prevent the patient from falling.
- Perry suffered a back injury as a result of the unassisted lift.
Procedural Posture:
- Perry filed a report of injury and a claim for worker's compensation benefits.
- The Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division issued a final determination denying Perry's request for benefits.
- The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) held a contested case hearing.
- The OAH hearing examiner issued a decision denying benefits, finding Perry violated a safety regulation.
- Perry petitioned the district court for review of the OAH decision.
- The district court affirmed the OAH's denial of benefits.
- Perry filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of Wyoming.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employee's violation of a specific workplace safety regulation prohibiting unassisted patient lifting remove the employee from the scope of employment, thereby disqualifying them from receiving worker's compensation benefits for a resulting injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kite
Yes, the Court affirmed that the employee's violation of the safety rule removed her from the scope of employment. The Court applied the four-part test from Smith v. Husky Terminal Restaurant, Inc. to determine if the violation barred compensation. First, the employer expressly informed Perry of the specific restriction against unassisted two-person lifts through written policy and orientation. Second, Perry admitted she knew and understood the restriction and its consequences. Third, there was substantial evidence that the employer did not knowingly accept the benefit of violations; Perry did not prove the shift was illegally understaffed or that the employer knew of routine violations. Fourth, the injury clearly arose from the conduct that violated the restriction. The Court distinguished between a restriction on a 'method' of doing work (which might be compensable) and a restriction on the ultimate 'thing' or task to be done. Perry's action was a prohibited 'thing,' placing her outside the scope of employment.
Dissent - Chief Justice Hill
No, the dissent argued that the Smith rule should be abandoned or found inapplicable because it conflicts with the no-fault nature of worker's compensation. The dissent contended that Perry was performing the ultimate work she was hired to do—assisting patients—and merely used a prohibited method (lifting alone) rather than a prohibited task. The dissent emphasized that modern legal authority generally allows benefits when an employee violates a rule regarding the method of work, especially when the employee acts in an emergency to protect a patient, which ultimately benefits the employer. The dissent also argued that the employer implicitly accepted the benefit of the violation because of the understaffing and the necessity of patient care.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the strict boundaries of the 'scope of employment' doctrine in Wyoming worker's compensation law. It highlights that while the system is generally no-fault, an employer can limit liability by establishing clear, specific safety rules. The decision places a significant burden on employees to adhere to safety protocols even in difficult or understaffed situations, as well-intentioned violations (like trying to help a patient) can result in a total denial of benefits. The case relies heavily on the distinction between a prohibited 'method' versus a prohibited 'task,' a nuance that determines whether misconduct is a mere deviation (compensable) or outside the scope of employment (non-compensable).
