Clements v. Aramark Corp.
Decision Date | 29 May 2018 |
Docket Number | AC 39488 |
Citation | 189 A.3d 644,182 Conn.App. 224 |
Parties | Sharon CLEMENTS v. ARAMARK CORPORATION et al. |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Gary W. Huebner, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Dominick C. Statile, Glastonbury, with whom, on the brief, was Tushar G. Shah, Hartford, for the appellee (defendants).
Keller, Prescott and Bright, Js.
The principal issue in this appeal is the compensability, under the Workers' Compensation Act (act), General Statutes § 31–275 et seq., of an injury to an employee that occurred on an employer's premises when the employee became lightheaded, fell, and hit her head while walking to her work station before the start of her shift. The plaintiff, Sharon Clements, appeals from the decision of the Workers' Compensation Review Board (board) affirming the decision of the Workers' Compensation Commissioner for the Second District (commissioner) in favor of the defendant employer, Aramark Corporation (defendant), and the employer's insurer, Sedgwick CMS, Inc. The plaintiff claims that the board erred in holding that, because the plaintiff's fall was caused by her personal infirmity, rather than a workplace condition, her resultant head injury
did not arise out of and in the course of her employment within the meaning of the act. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the decision of the board.
The following undisputed facts, which are set forth in the commissioner's decision or are ascertained from uncontested portions of the record, are relevant to our consideration of the issue on appeal. The plaintiff, while employed by the defendant, served as a mess attendant at the Coast Guard Academy in New London (academy). Her duties included serving food and beverages, and cleaning up after meals. She typically worked during both breakfast and lunch. On the morning of September 19, 2012, the plaintiff drove to work, parked her vehicle at the academy at approximately 5:40 a.m., and exited her vehicle. She walked a short distance from her vehicle to a building. The path was short, not uphill or inclined in any way. The plaintiff did not trip. The plaintiff testified that, after entering the building and walking down a hallway, she "went through the door to go out to get into the next building," where she became lightheaded and passed out, falling backward "on the [asphalt],"1 and hitting her head on the ground. No one witnessed her fall. After she was discovered by coworkers, someone called for assistance. Members of the New London Fire Department arrived and found the plaintiff "lying on the ground" with "a bump on the back of her head," "unable to sign [a] consent form because of her level of consciousness ...." The plaintiff was taken to Lawrence + Memorial Hospital (hospital). Hospital reports indicate that the plaintiff suffered from a syncopal episode and that she was diagnosed with ecchymosis and swelling.2 A treating physician, Neer Zeevi, and hospital records, indicate that the plaintiff's syncope likely was cardiac or cardiogenic in etiology.
While in the emergency room, the plaintiff suffered from cardiac arrest
. During her stay in the hospital, the plaintiff had a pacemaker inserted. In a discharge summary report, John Nelson, a neurologist, opined: "Apparently she had significant head trauma
secondary to her fall. While in the emergency department, she again lost consciousness and was seen to have asystole3 on monitoring. [Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) ] was initiated and the patient had return of spontaneous rhythm and blood pressure shortly afterwards. Per the [emergency room] physician, CPR was reportedly begun within [twenty] seconds on onset of asystole and was only carried out for approximately [ten] seconds before the patient experienced spontaneous return of rhythm." (Footnote added.)
The plaintiff has a history of cardiac disease, hypertension
, hyperlipidemia, hypothyroidism, and an irregular heartbeat. She also has a family history of coronary disease. Her discharge records set forth, inter alia, the following diagnosis: asystolic arrest, cardiogenic syncope with concussive head injury, and hypothyroidism. On the basis of these findings, the commissioner determined that "the [plaintiff's] injury did not arise out of her employment with the [defendant], but was caused by a cardiogenic syncope."
The plaintiff appealed from the commissioner's decision to the board. She claimed, in relevant part, that the commissioner had misapplied the law and improperly determined that her injury did not arise out of her employment. The board disagreed, concluding that Accordingly, the board affirmed the decision of the commissioner, ruling in favor of the defendant. This appeal followed.
We begin by setting forth the standard of review applicable to workers' compensation appeals. (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Hart v. Federal Express Corp. , 321 Conn. 1, 18–19, 135 A.3d 38 (2016).
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Wiblyi v. McDonald's Corp. , 168 Conn. App. 77, 86, 144 A.3d 1075 (2016).
The plaintiff states that "[t]his appeal asks the court to determine whether the correct standard of law was applied to the facts as found by the trial commissioner." She claims that the board erred in holding that, because the plaintiff's fall at work was caused by her personal infirmity, rather than a workplace condition, her resultant head injury
did not arise out of and in the course of her employment. She argues that her head injury was caused by her head striking the ground at her place of employment, not by any personal infirmity. The personal infirmity that caused her fall, she argues, did not involve a head injury ; rather, the head injury for which she is seeking benefits resulted from her head hitting the ground at her workplace. Accordingly, she argues, the board erred in concluding that her head injury did not arise out of and in the course of her employment.
It is beyond dispute that the plaintiff's head injury
was caused by her head hitting the ground after her fall. The plaintiff concedes that the fall, itself, was the result of a personal infirmity. The defendant contends that the plaintiff's head would not have hit the ground if she had not fallen as a result of a personal infirmity. Consequently, it argues, the injuries did not arise out of, or occur in the course of, her employment and are not compensable under the act.
We begin our analysis with the relevant language of the act. Section 31–275 provides in relevant part: "(1) ‘Arising out of and in the course of his employment’ means an accidental injury happening to an employee ... originating while the employee has been engaged in the line of the employee's duty in the business or affairs of the employer upon the employer's premises ...." From this language our Supreme Court has derived a two part test.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Spatafore v. Yale University , 239 Conn. 408, 417–18, 684 A.2d 1155 (1996). (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Clements v. Aramark Corp.
...of law, as long as the fall occurred in the course of the employment, as it did in the present case. See Clements v. Aramark Corp ., 182 Conn. App. 224, 231–37, 189 A.3d 644 (2018). We granted the petition for certification to appeal, filed by the named defendant, Aramark Corporation, the p......
-
Clements v. Aramark Corp.
...support of the petition.Gary W. Huebner, in opposition.The defendants' petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 182 Conn. App. 224, 189 A.3d 644 (2018), is granted, limited to the following issue:"Did the Appellate Court properly determine that the condition causing th......