Girard v. Patterson State Bank

Citations: 950 So. 2d 703; 2006 WL 3103256Docket: 2006 CA 0049

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; November 2, 2006; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Lynette A. Girard appealed a summary judgment from the Office of Workers' Compensation (OWC) favoring Patterson State Bank (PSB), which concluded she did not sustain an injury arising out of and in the course of her employment. The case revolves around an incident on August 13, 2003, when Girard, a loan servicing clerk, was injured while donating blood during work hours at a mobile unit on PSB's premises. Following the blood draw, she experienced immediate pain and limited movement in her arm, later diagnosed as Complex Regional Pain Syndrome, which ultimately hindered her ability to work.

Girard filed for workers' compensation benefits on August 13, 2004, citing her injury resulted from the blood donation. PSB denied her claims and sought summary judgment, asserting that Girard's injury did not arise from her employment. The OWC granted the summary judgment, leading to Girard's appeal.

The appellate court reviewed the summary judgment de novo, examining if any genuine issues of material fact existed and whether PSB was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. It reinforced that under Louisiana law, an employee is entitled to compensation benefits only if the injury is both "arising out of" and "in the course of" employment, emphasizing that these elements are distinct yet interrelated. Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the OWC's decision, supporting the conclusion that Girard's injury did not meet the criteria for compensation under the Louisiana Workers' Compensation Act.

The Jackson court distinguishes between two critical elements for establishing compensation claims: the "in-the-course-of" element, which relates to the temporal and spatial connection between the risk and employment, and the "arising-out-of" element, which examines the nature of the risk. A strong showing in one element can offset a weaker showing in the other, while weak evidence in both suggests denial of compensation. For the "arising-out-of" element, two factors are significant: whether attendance at the event was mandatory and how the employer benefited from the activity leading to the injury.

In the case at hand, evidence from Ms. Girard's deposition and Mr. Watson’s affidavit provides key insights. Ms. Girard, a loan servicing clerk at PSB, participated in a blood drive organized by UBS on PSB premises, which was not compulsory. She was informed about the drive through signs and a memo, but felt no coercion from her employer. Although she believed PSB encouraged donations, participation was voluntary, with no incentives or penalties involved. Mr. Watson confirmed that PSB merely permitted the blood drive and neither mandated employee participation nor incentivized it.

Regarding the "in-the-course-of" element, Ms. Girard was injured while on PSB's property and during work hours; however, donating blood was not part of her job responsibilities, indicating a lack of a strong connection between her employment duties and the risk she encountered. Thus, the evidence suggests that the relationship between the risk of injury from the blood donation process and her employment is not sufficiently strong to warrant compensation.

Ms. Girard's claim for compensation benefits under the Louisiana Workers' Compensation Act was denied due to insufficient evidence supporting her entitlement. She acknowledged that her participation in the blood drive was voluntary and that she felt no coercion from her employer, PSB. Mr. Watson's affidavit indicated that PSB employees faced no rewards or penalties for their participation decisions, implying that non-participation did not result in employment-related consequences. The evidence presented by PSB demonstrated that the blood unit was merely located on the bank premises, and Ms. Girard failed to provide evidence that her participation served her employer's interests or that it was mandated. Consequently, both the "in-the-course-of" and "arising-out-of" elements necessary for her claim were not met, leading to the affirmation of the Office of Workers' Compensation's summary judgment dismissing her claims. Costs of the appeal were assigned to Ms. Girard. Although she argued that her injury occurred during regular work hours, the record did not substantiate her assertions regarding her obligations or the circumstances of her participation.