Workers Compensation and Recreational Injuries

Here in Utah, the “gold standard” for deciding whether or not a recreational injury is compensable under workers compensation comes from a Utah Supreme Court case titled “Blacks vs. McDonald’s”. The court’s decision listed four tests for what constitutes a compensable injury under workers compensation. These four tests are as follows:

1. Time and place. Recreational games scheduled during work hours on company premises are usually found to be work-related. Even when only the first of these four elements is present, the Utah Supreme Court has found that with regard to time and place “the case has made a strong start.” Id. at Sec. 22.24(b). Where games are scheduled off premises and after hours, the burden of proving a work connection falls heavily on the other three factors set out immediately below.
2. Degree of employer initiative, promotion, and sponsorship. When sufficiently present, these elements clearly point toward sufficient control to identify the activity with the employment. Though not decisive, presence of these elements tends to support compensability.
3. Financial support and equipment furnished by employer. Standing alone, these elements are not sufficient to make the recreational activity work related, but will weigh in the aggregate.
4. Employer benefit. This factor plays a supporting rather than an independently decisive role as well. Intangible values, such as increased work efficiency and morale, are insufficient to link the activity to the employment.

Applying these tests is highly subjective. Where the employer or workers compensation carrier might see no coverage, it is always possible that an administrative (labor) law judge will feel otherwise.

Courts in a number of states have formulated similar tests. Although there are similarities, there can be substantial differences. In fact, a number of states specifically exclude coverage for injuries suffered while the employee was participating in voluntary recreational activities, provided that participation was not a job requirement.

Important note: the foregoing discussion must not be viewed as legal advice. We always recommend that this issue be discussed thoroughly with in-house counsel or a labor attorney.