SAIF v. Blankenship

34

Argued and submitted on February 8, affirmed August 18, 2021

In the Matter of the Compensation of

Timothy W. Blankenship, Claimant.

SAIF CORPORATION

and Lane Transit District,

Petitioners,

v.

Timothy W. BLANKENSHIP,

Respondent.

Workers’ Compensation Board

1800807; A172525

496 P3d 692

SAIF Corporation and employer Lane Transit District seek judicial review

of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board holding that claimant suffered

a compensable work injury when his prosthetic hip failed while he was standing

in line to use a work computer to check out for a mandatory work break, because

the injury was the result of a “mixed risk,” in which a personal risk (claimant’s

preexisting trunnionosis) and an employment risk (moving about the workplace)

together produced the harm. SAIF contends that the injury did not arise out of

claimant’s employment, because the risk of injury was personal to claimant and

unrelated to his employment. Held: The mixed-risk doctrine provides an appro-

priate analysis when the medical evidence shows that an injury results in part

from an employment-related risk and in part from a personal risk. The Court of

Appeals held that substantial evidence supports the board’s finding that claim-

ant’s injury was the result of a mixed risk, because the activity in which claimant

was engaged at the time of his injury was work related, and that the board did

not err in concluding that claimant’s injury arose out of his employment.

Affirmed.

Beth Cupani argued the cause and filed the briefs for

petitioners.

Dale C. Johnson argued the cause and filed the brief for

respondent.

Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge,

and Aoyagi, Judge.

TOOKEY, J.

Affirmed.

Cite as 314 Or App 34 (2021) 35

TOOKEY, J.

SAIF Corporation and employer Lane Transit

District seek judicial review of an order of the Workers’

Compensation Board holding that claimant suffered a

compensable work injury, contending that the injury did

not “arise out of” claimant’s employment, because the risk

of injury was personal to claimant and unrelated to his

employment. We review the board’s order pursuant to ORS

656.298(7) and ORS 183.482(8)(a) and (c) for errors of law

and substantial evidence, conclude that the board did not

err, and affirm.

Under circumstances not related to his employ-

ment, claimant, who works for employer as a public trans-

portation mechanic, had a left-hip replacement and received

a left hip prosthesis in 2010, with a surgical repair in 2012.

In January 2018, claimant was standing in line at work

to use a computer to “log out” for a scheduled work break,

as required by employer. While standing in line, claimant

moved his left foot behind him and rested the tip of his boot

on the floor, “to relax it.” Claimant immediately felt a click,

pop, and rumbling in his left hip, followed by numbness

in his leg and significant and persistent pain. Claimant

thought that something was wrong and that he was going to

pass out.

Claimant went to the hospital by ambulance, where

claimant’s treating orthopedic surgeon diagnosed a “frac-

tured left total hip arthroplasty with displacement of the

femoral shaft.” Claimant underwent surgery for repair of

the prosthesis. Claimant’s doctor explained that claimant’s

prosthesis had failed as a result of claimant’s leg movement

combined with the preexisting degraded condition of the

prosthesis (trunnionosis). The doctor expressed the opin-

ion that claimant’s leg movement was at least a material

contributing cause of the failure of the prosthesis, and that

the preexisting trunnionosis was also a contributing factor,

because it caused a loosening of the connection between the

ball and the stem/trunnion of the prosthesis.

SAIF denied claimant’s claim for compensa-

tion, asserting that the injury did not arise out of the

36 SAIF v. Blankenship

employment.1 An administrative law judge (ALJ) over-

turned the denial, and the board affirmed the ALJ’s order.

SAIF and employer seek judicial review.

An injury is compensable if it arises out of and in

the course of the employment. ORS 656.005(7)(a). It is undis-

puted that claimant’s injury occurred during the course of

his employment. The only dispute is whether claimant’s

injury arose out of his employment. An injury “arises out of”

the employment if it arises from the nature of the claimant’s

work or from a risk to which the work environment exposes

the worker. Fred Meyer, Inc., v. Hayes, 325 Or 592, 598, 943

P2d 197 (1997).

Risks are generally categorized as employment-

related risks, personal risks, or neutral risks. Phil A.

Livesley Co. v. Russ, 296 Or 25, 29-30, 672 P2d 337 (1983).

Employment-related risks are those that are inherent in the

job. SAIF Corp. v. Marin, 139 Or App 518, 524, 913 P2d 336

(1996). Personal risks are risks that have no employment

connection and that arise from conditions or circumstances

that are personal to the worker. Sheldon v. U. S. Bank, 364

Or 831, 834, 441 P3d 210 (2019) (“Personal risks include a

claimant’s personal medical conditions, such as conditions

that can lead to an idiopathic fall.”); Marin, 139 Or App at

523-24. Neutral risks have no particular employment or

personal character and are compensable if work conditions

caused the claimant to be in a position to be injured. Id.; see

also Sheldon, 364 Or at 834 (adhering to analysis).

Here, the board found that claimant’s injury was

caused by a “mixed risk,” in which a personal risk (claim-

ant’s preexisting trunnionosis) and an employment risk

(moving about the workplace) together produced the harm.

See Hamilton v. SAIF, 256 Or App 256, 260, 302 P3d 1184,

rev den, 354 Or 148 (2013) (describing mixed-risk doctrine);

Arthur Larson and Lex K. Larson, 1 Larson’s Workers’

Compensation Law § 4.04, 4-3 (2017) (same). In such mixed-

risk contexts, the board has held, an injury is considered to

1

ORS 656.005(7)(a) provides that a compensable injury is:

“an accidental injury, or accidental injury to prosthetic appliances, arising

out of and in the course of employment requiring medical services or result-

ing in disability or death.”

Cite as 314 Or App 34 (2021) 37

be caused by an employment risk if a risk of the employment

contributed to its cause. See, e.g., Janet G. Cavalliere, 66 Van

Natta 228, 234 (2014) (recognizing the compensability of

mixed-risk injuries). Under the mixed-risk doctrine,

“the law does not weigh the relative importance of the two

causes, nor does it look for primary and secondary causes;

it merely inquires whether the employment was a contrib-

uting factor. If it was, the concurrence of the personal cause

will not defeat compensability.”

Larson, 1 Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law § 4.04. We

have not previously applied the mixed-risk doctrine, but

we are persuaded that it provides an appropriate analysis

in a case such as this. When an injury results at least in

part from an employment-related risk, it arises out of the

employment, even if a personal risk is also in play.

SAIF contends that claimant’s injury did not arise

out of the employment because claimant has not identified

any risk of his employment associated with leg movement

while standing in line—claimant’s work did not require him

to move his leg at that moment. We reject SAIF’s contention

that claimant’s movement at the time of injury did not arise

out of the employment because he was not engaged in a work

activity. The board found that logging out for a mandatory

work break was required by employer and therefore a part

of claimant’s employment. That finding is supported by sub-

stantial evidence.

In SAIF’s view, it is essentially fortuitous that

claimant’s prosthesis failed at work, and that it could have

failed anywhere claimant might have moved his leg in the

particular way that he did. Thus, SAIF contends, claimant’s

injury arose from purely a personal risk, with no relation

to the employment. It is true that claimant’s injury could

have happened anywhere and did not depend on the unique

circumstances of claimant standing in line at work at the

computer. But it did happen at work. And, contrary to

SAIF’s contention, movement about the work area in carry-

ing out job duties is generally considered to be work-related.

See Wilson v. State Farm Ins., 326 Or 413, 417, 952 P2d

528 (1998) (describing “moving about the office” as a “work-

related activity”). The board did not err in concluding that

38 SAIF v. Blankenship

claimant was engaged in a work activity at the time of his

injury and that it was caused in part by a work-related risk.

The mixed-risk doctrine counsels that when an

injury is caused in part by an employment risk, it arises out of

the employment. Larson, 1 Larson’s Workers’ Compensation

Law § 4.04. We conclude that the board did not err in deter-

mining that claimant’s injury arose out of his employment

and is therefore compensable.

Affirmed.