Business Insurance reports that in its analysis, the appellate court noted that today’s employers commonly contact workers through electronic communications devices. Yet the mere possibility that a cell phone call might originate from an employer does not mean any injury that occurs arises from their employment.
However, the court found the specific facts of the case show Donna Turpin’s injury arose from her employment. It said her response to the call stemmed from her particular attentiveness to the distinct requirements of her job, specifically monitoring her cell phone for employer communications. Therefore, there was a “causal connection between the claimant’s injury and the conditions under which the employer required the work to be performed,” the court ruled, according to Business Insurance.
In a dissent, however, Judge D. Arthur Kelsey said there was no evidence that Turpin’s employer actually called her personal cell phone, among other issues.
The suit, Wythe County Community Hospital and Travelers Indemnity Co. of America vs. Donna Turpin, said Turpin, a hospice nurse, worked on call during the weekends, and court records show her employer mainly contacted her via pager, but when the pager didn’t not work, which was common, her personal cell phone served as a backup contact means. Turpin kept her cell phone in her front pocket while on call and had instructed friends and family not to contact her during that time, but to contact her husband in case of an emergency.
Turpin’s job also required her to drive her personal car, where she stored work supplies, and her employer reimbursed her for traveling to visit patients. The news report said the accident occurred when her cell phone lit up and she momentarily looked down, assuming her employer was trying to contact her. The distraction caused her car tires to slide and she struck a bank on the other side of the road.A deputy workers comp commissioner found the accident was compensable based on the specific facts of the case, the employer appealed to the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission. The employer and insurer argued that the claimant did not suffer an injury that arose from her employment. The commission disagreed and upheld the benefits award.