Often the most interesting stories about workers' compensation law concern whether the worker's injury occured during an activity that was within the "course and scope" of employment. The Court of Appeals decision in Sisco v. Quicker Recovery (218 Or App 376 (2008)) is one of those cases.
Mr. Sisco was working as a tow truck driver, and his employer had a contract with the Gresham Police Department to tow impounded vehicles on 30 minutes' notice. In the early hours of the morning, while on his way to tow a vehicle, Sisco was stopped by a Gresham police officer for speeding.
When Sisco stopped his truck, he immediately called the dispatcher, because the 30-minute time period had just expired. The dispatcher told him to simply cooperate with the officer. He responded, "I sure will."
However, when the officer asked for his driver's license, Sisco refused and informed the officer he had a "sovereign right" not to show his license. The officer explained that Sisco was legally obligated to show his license; failure to do so would result in arrest. Sisco then locked his door and started to roll up his window. The officer ordered Sisco out of the truck, but Sisco refused. The officer called for backup officers, and they ordered him out of the truck. Sisco refused. The officers eventually used a stun gun to subdue Sisco and forcibly remove him from the truck. The officers held him on the ground and handcuffed him.
Five days later, Sisco filed a workers' compensation claim and sought medical treatment for neck and arm pain. His doctors diagnosed a neck disc protrusion resulting from the altercation with the police.
The self-insured employer denied the claim because the injury did not arise out of or in the course of Sisco's employment. Both the administrative law judge and the Workers' Compensation Board agreed with the employer that the claim was not compensable, because Sisco purposely violated his employer's instructions to cooperate with the police officer, and because his conduct did not arise out of the normal course of his employment.
At the Court of Appeals, Sisco argued that his injury was sufficiently related to his work because speeding while responding to a towing request was a work-related risk. The court agreed, concluding that Sisco's refusal to cooperate with the officers did not exceed the ultimate bounds of his employment. The court decided that Sisco's refusal to cooperate with the police and resisting arrest were related to his employment and sent the case back to the Workers' Compensation Board to address other arguments raised by the employer.
The Management-Labor Advisory Committee has a continuing responsibility to monitor developments in the workers' compensation system. During 2008, they are studying recent court decisions to see whether they are consistent with the Committee's view of how the system should function. This case is now under review by the Committee. When their study is
complete, the Committee may propose legislation for consideration in the 2009 session.