This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Worker, employed as a greeter at a retail store, sustained injuries while apprehending a customer suspected of shoplifting. The Worker tackled and handcuffed the customer after a security alarm indicated unpaid merchandise. The Worker was not trained in security procedures, and his job description emphasized greeting customers, checking receipts, and contacting security for suspected thefts. The use of handcuffs and physical apprehension was prohibited by the Employer's policies, which the Worker claimed he was not made aware of (paras 1-4, 9-13).
Procedural History
- Workers' Compensation Administration: The Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) found that the Worker's injury did not arise out of or occur within the course and scope of his employment as a greeter (para 5).
Parties' Submissions
- Worker (Appellant): Argued that his actions in apprehending the customer were a good faith exercise of judgment to serve the Employer's interests. He claimed he was not informed of any specific policies prohibiting such actions and was not trained in shoplifter apprehension procedures (paras 9-13).
- Employer/Insurer (Appellees): Contended that the Worker's actions exceeded the scope of his job duties as a greeter, violated company policies, and were not authorized. They argued that the injury did not arise out of or occur within the course of employment (paras 2-4, 9-13).
Legal Issues
- Did the Worker's injury arise out of and occur within the course and scope of his employment as a greeter?
- Did the Worker's actions violate specific instructions or policies that would bar recovery of workers' compensation benefits?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Workers' Compensation Judge, holding that the Worker's injury arose out of and occurred within the course and scope of his employment (para 14).
Reasons
Per Sutin CJ (Fry and Vigil JJ. concurring):
The Court found insufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the Worker violated any clear and specific Employer policy or instruction of which he was aware. The Worker was not shown or trained on the Employer's shoplifter apprehension policy, and the job description did not explicitly prohibit his actions. The Court determined that the Worker's conduct was a good faith exercise of judgment in attempting to fulfill his duties and serve the Employer's interests. Therefore, the injury was deemed to have arisen out of and occurred within the course and scope of his employment (paras 9-13).