Finger “Jam” Not Compensable

by Varda S. Khan

In the recent Virginia case of Agyemang v. The Gardens at Warwick Forest, the Full Commission examined whether the Deputy Commissioner erred in finding that the claimant suffered a compensable left-hand injury arising out of her employment. JCN VA00001874767 (Jan 10, 2023). The Commission reversed and vacated the Deputy Commissioner’s decision, concluding that the claimant’s left-hand injury did not “arise out of” her employment because there was no actual risk of her employment which caused or contributed to her injury.

In Agyemang, the claimant sustained a left-hand injury while placing a light weight coffee cup on top of the refrigerator, which was slightly below waist level. As the claimant was attempting to place the coffee cup on top of the refrigerator, her body lunged forward and she jammed her left hand into the refrigerator. The claimant felt pain in the fifth finger. The Deputy Commissioner awarded benefits on the basis that the claimant sustained a compensable injury because there was an “identifiable incident or sudden precipitating event … [which] occurred as a result of a condition of … [her] work place”. The defendants requested review on the basis that the claimant’s injury did not “arise out of” her employment.

There are multiple ways that a claimant can satisfy the “actual risk test” and prove that their injury “arises out of” their employment. The claimant can satisfy their legal burden by proving that the conditions of their employment exposed them to a danger which is not commonly exposed to the general public, and that the danger caused or contributed to their injury. Simply being injured at work does not prove an actual risk of employment. The claimant can also satisfy their burden by producing evidence of a workplace condition which is “peculiar”, “unusual” or otherwise “qualitatively different” than a risk to which the general public would be exposed.

Upon reviewing the claimant’s testimony of how the injury arose, the Commission noted that there were no risks or conditions of her employment which caused or contributed to her workplace injury, absent the existence of a refrigerator in the office kitchen. Defense noted, and the Commission agreed, that:

“Claimant was injured doing a basic task that was not peculiar to her employment. She was simply placing lightweight coffee mugs on top of a stationary refrigerator. There was no evidence of anything unusual about her movements, the cups or the refrigerator. There was no evidence of an awkward position or unusual work-related exertion.”

Additionally, the layout of the office kitchen or the placement of the refrigerator did not denote any inclination of a cramped or crowded space which would cause the claimant to move in an awkward position. Although she did “jam” her finger in a single motion while doing this task, the movement of her finger towards the refrigerator door was not deemed to be unusual in any way.

In any scenario where a claimant is alleging a workplace injury, it is imperative to analyze the claimant’s employment conditions and determine whether their injury resulted from a risk not commonly exposed to the general public and this case serves as a good example of this principle.