Hizey v. MCI

Citations: 181 P.3d 583; 39 Kan. App. 2d 609; 2008 Kan. App. LEXIS 69Docket: 97,947

Court: Court of Appeals of Kansas; April 25, 2008; Kansas; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

MCI and Zurich U.S. Insurance Company appeal a Workers Compensation Board decision awarding Edith L. Hizey compensation for an injury sustained during a company-organized dance contest at MCI's workplace. MCI argues that Hizey's injury occurred during a "recreational or social event," which would exempt it from compensation under K.S.A.2004 Supp. 44-508(f). The court affirms the Board's findings, stating that when employees participate in employer-organized activities that benefit both the employer and the employees, these do not qualify as recreational events under the statute. Hizey, a sales representative since 1992, sustained her injury while participating in a dance contest that was encouraged and supervised by MCI management during regular working hours on company premises. The administrative law judge (ALJ) ruled that the activity was not of a purely social nature, a decision upheld by the Board, which applied relevant legal factors and concluded the injury arose in the course of Hizey's employment.

Hizey applied for temporary disability benefits during her pending appeal and requested a new preliminary hearing. MCI contended her injury was not compensable under K.S.A.2004 Supp. 44-508(f). The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) awarded Hizey the requested benefits, which the Board upheld despite MCI's appeal. Following a full evidentiary hearing, the ALJ confirmed the injury was work-related, granting Hizey 45.05 weeks of temporary total disability and 192.48 weeks of permanent partial disability compensation, totaling $62,912.19, along with attorney fees. The Board modified this award on appeal but affirmed the compensability of the injury, stating that the activities leading to her injury were integral to her employment and organized by the employer. One Board member dissented, arguing that the injury stemmed from a voluntary recreational activity unrelated to Hizey’s job duties, thereby invoking K.S.A.2004 Supp. 44-508(f) to deny recovery. The appeal centered on whether K.S.A.2004 Supp. 44-508(f) barred recovery under the Workers Compensation Act due to the nature of the activity. MCI argued that the Board applied the wrong legal standard, asserting Hizey was injured during a non-mandatory recreational event that did not pertain to her normal job tasks. The legal framework for appeals is governed by the Kansas Act for Judicial Review and Civil Enforcement of Agency Actions (KJRA), which limits reviews to legal questions and the sufficiency of the Board's factual findings. Generally, for an injury to be compensable under the Workers Compensation Act, it must arise out of and in the course of employment, with K.S.A.2004 Supp. 44-508(f) defining the scope and limitations of such injuries.

Hizey asserts that incentive programs, including a dance contest, were integral to his employment rather than mere recreational events, as they were organized, encouraged, and implemented by management during working hours on company premises for the company's benefit. Both parties reference several unpublished court opinions related to K.S.A.2004 Supp. 44-508(f) to support their arguments, including Dickerson v. A-1 Appliance Plumbing, Heating, Cooling, Inc., where an employee was denied workers' compensation for an injury sustained during a sumo wrestling competition at a holiday party held outside normal hours. The court ruled that the event was a recreational activity unrelated to work obligations. In contrast, Hizey's situation involved activities supervised by MCI management, aimed at employee motivation and occurring during paid work hours. While participation was voluntary, it was strongly encouraged through incentives, distinguishing it from the Dickerson case. MCI also cited McIntosh v. City of Wichita, where compensation was denied for an injury during a non-mandatory tennis game, reinforcing that activities outside organized programs do not qualify for compensation under K.S.A.2004 Supp. 44-508(f).

The City did not mandate firefighters to engage in physical activity during discretionary time if they missed the morning fitness program. McIntosh, a firefighter who was injured while playing tennis at a park, was not instructed by the City to play, and his injuries were deemed unrelated to his job duties. Although the facts in McIntosh are somewhat similar, they are distinguishable because the injury occurred off the employer's premises during a discretionary period. The McIntosh court suggested that injuries during scheduled activities might be compensable, even if participation was voluntary.

In contrast, in Flower v. City of Junction City, the court ruled that a firefighter's injury while playing volleyball during a scheduled fitness break was compensable as it occurred while the employee was on duty and the activity was organized by the employer. The court emphasized that K.S.A. 44-508(f) did not apply to injuries sustained during employer-scheduled activities, reinforcing that such events are integral to employment rather than purely recreational. The findings in Flower were applied to Hizey’s case, where her injury occurred during a scheduled, employer-organized activity while on duty. The Board correctly concluded that Hizey’s injury arose out of her employment, making it compensable.