Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Are Available to Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Blog
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Elisabeth K. Eubanks
  • Links
  • Contact Us

December 13, 2019 by Jennifer Kennedy

Workers’ compensation — Compensable accidents — Recreational activity — Injury sustained while claimant was bowling with co-workers during regular working hours was work related where activity was an expressly required incident of employment and produced substantial direct benefit to the employer beyond improvement in employee health and morale — Availability of an electronic option to decline employer’s email invitation was not sufficient to establish that claimant’s participation in event was voluntary — Moreover, claimant’s supervisor testified that one purpose of the event was to discuss goals for the next year

44 Fla. L. Weekly D2931a

Workers’ compensation — Compensable accidents — Recreational activity — Injury sustained while claimant was bowling with co-workers during regular working hours was work related where activity was an expressly required incident of employment and produced substantial direct benefit to the employer beyond improvement in employee health and morale — Availability of an electronic option to decline employer’s email invitation was not sufficient to establish that claimant’s participation in event was voluntary — Moreover, claimant’s supervisor testified that one purpose of the event was to discuss goals for the next year

KAREN REYNOLDS, Appellant, v. ANIXTER POWER SOLUTIONS and TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellees. 1st District. Case No. 1D19-0231. December 10, 2019. On appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Thomas W. Sculco, Judge. Date of Accident: April 18, 2018. Counsel: Nicholas A. Shannin of Shannin Law Firm, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant. Eric R. Eide of Grower, Ketcham, Eide, Telan & Meltz, P.A., Orlando, for Appellees.

(WOLF, J.) Karen Reynolds appeals an order denying her claim for worker’s compensation benefits for an injury she sustained while bowling with co-workers during regular working hours. The JCC concluded that the bowling event was a “recreational activity” and that Reynolds’ injury was not compensable. We determine that the injury sustained while bowling was work related pursuant to section 440.921, Florida Statutes, and reverse.

Reynolds attended the bowling event during her paid work shift and injured her ankle. There is no serious dispute that bowling, like many other activities, may constitute a recreational activity if done for the purpose of refreshment.1 But the record here requires a finding that the injury sustained while bowling was compensable under section 440.092(1), because the activity was an expressly required incident of employment and it produced a substantial direct benefit to the employer beyond improvement in employee health and morale. See Highlands Cty. Sch. Bd. v. Savage, 609 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

Section 440.092(1), Florida Statutes, provides:

Recreational or social activities are not compensable unless such recreational or social activities are an expressly required incident of employment and produce a substantial direct benefit to the employer beyond improvement in employee health and morale that is common to all kinds of recreation and social life.

There is no dispute that the bowling event was during regular work hours, Anixter paid employees who attended the event, and Claimant was not told she could have remained at work or taken a vacation day rather than attend the event. No other alternative was offered by the employer. These facts were expressly accepted by the JCC.

The purpose of the event was to improve morale and, as testified to by Claimant’s supervisor, to discuss “some of our goals for the next year.”

Because the facts are undisputed, the question becomes one of law reviewable de novo. See Sedgwick CMS v. Valcourt-Williams, 271 So. 3d 1133, 1135 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019); cf. McCain v. Fla. Power Corp., 593 So. 2d 500, 504 (Fla. 1992).

Certainly, if an employer invites an employee during work hours to discuss goals for their department, an employee is obligated to attend. Here, the employer’s invitation was sent by email and could be accepted or declined, but an electronic option to decline is insufficient to establish that participation in this event was voluntary.2

The fact that the bowling was conducted during regular work hours and one purpose of the event was to discuss goals for the upcoming year distinguishes this case from Whitehead v. Orange County Sheriff’s Department, 909 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (affirming JCC’s finding that injury sustained by claimant while playing softball when she was “on-call” was not compensable). In addition, the undisputed facts in this record also satisfy section 440.092(1)’s exception to the exemption for recreational activities. No reasonable person in Claimant’s position would have believed that the activity was not a required incident of employment. In addition, the testimony of the employer established that there was a substantial and direct benefit to the employer beyond simply improving employee morale and health.

Words written on the creation of section 440.092(1) and adopted by this court almost thirty years ago still hold true: “There is nothing in the statute as adopted which would indicate a desire to preclude compensation where a person was injured in conducting actual job duties.” Savage, 609 So. 2d at 135. We, therefore, REVERSE and REMAND for entry of an order finding the injury to be compensable. (ROBERTS, J., concurs; ROWE, J., dissents with opinion.)

__________________

1In the absence of a statutory definition of “recreation” we turn to dictionaries. See, e.g., Dorsey v. Robinson, 270 So. 3d 462, 465-66 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). They uniformly agree that recreation involves “refreshment” after work. See Recreation, THE MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY 605 (New ed. 2004) (“a refreshing of strength or spirits after work”); Recreation, MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 977 (10th ed. 1998) (“refreshment of strength and spirits after work; also: a means of refreshment or diversion”); Recreation, THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 1511 (3d ed. 1992) (“Refreshment of one’s mind or body after work through activity that amuses or stimulates; play”); Recreation, THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 1090 (New College ed. 1982) (“Refreshment of one’s mind or body after labor through diverting activity; play.”); Recreation, WEBSTER’S NEW WORLD DICTIONARY OF THE AMERICAN LANGUAGE 1188 (Second College ed. 1978) (“refreshment in body or mind, as after work, by some form of play, amusement, or relaxation”).

2It is worth noting the actual email invitation was not introduced into evidence.

__________________

(ROWE, J., dissenting,) The JCC correctly determined that the bowling event Karen Reynolds attended with her co-workers was a “recreational activity.” I would affirm the order denying compensability for the injury Reynolds sustained while bowling.

Section 440.092(1), Florida Statutes (2017), requires a worker seeking compensability for an injury at a recreational event to show that the activity was “an expressly required incident of employment” and that the activity provided “a substantial direct benefit to the employer beyond improvement in health and morale that is common to all kinds of recreation and social life.”

We review a JCC’s determination of whether an event is a recreational activity under section 440.092(1), for competent, substantial evidence. See Whitehead v. Orange Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t., 909 So. 2d 344, 345 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). The JCC found that the bowling event Reynolds attended was not a compensable recreational activity under the statute. That finding is supported by competent, substantial evidence.

Reynolds claims that no one told her that the bowling event was not required or that she could have remained at work or taken a vacation day rather than attend. But Reynolds’ supervisor testified that the event was not mandatory — it was “basically building morale” and did not include either clients or advertising. Reynolds admitted that she accepted the email invitation through Outlook, and she did not ignore or decline the invitation. The JCC relied on this testimony and found that Reynolds’ injury was not compensable under the exemption provided in section 440.092(1).

Reynolds failed to present competent, substantial evidence to show that the bowling event was required as an incident of her employment or that it provided a substantial direct benefit to APS beyond improving employee health and morale. The JCC’s order denying compensability for Reynolds’ bowling injury should be affirmed.

* * *

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Insurance — Homeowners — All-risk policy — Coverage — Cracking damage to home caused by blasting vibrations from nearby rock quarry — Exclusions — Earth or soil movement — Wear and tear, marking, deterioration, settling, shrinking, bulging, or expansion — Concurrent causes — Trial court did not err in denying insurer’s motion for directed verdict based on policy’s exclusion of coverage for earth sinking, rising, or shifting or soil movement resulting from blasting — Insurer’s position was based upon mischaracterization of testimony by insureds’ expert, who was steadfast in his opinion that none of the damage to home resulted from soil or earth movement, but was instead the result of shock waves from blasting that caused the house to shake — Based upon competing expert testimony, jury could have reasonably concluded that it was shock waves, not soil or earth movement, that caused damage — Jury instructions — Covered and excluded perils — Concurrent cause doctrine — Trial court did not err by instructing jury that land shock waves from blasting in combination with wear and tear, marring, deterioration, settling, shrinking, bulging, or expansion was not excluded under policy — Although policy’s earth movement exclusion contained an explicit anti-concurrent cause provision, this provision would have come into play only if jury had first determined that one of the causes of damage was earth movement — Judgment in favor of insureds affirmed
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Discovery — Work product — Claims files — Appeals — Certiorari — Trial court did not depart from essential requirements of the law by compelling insurer to produce documents from its claims and underwriting files — Documents in claims and underwriting files are not automatically work product — Insurer’s assertion of work-product privilege was overly broad, and insurer did not argue or prove that the requested documents were prepared in anticipation of litigation
  • Wrongful death — Medical malpractice — Vicarious liability — Punitive damages — Amendment of complaint — Allegation that defendant, through its president, committed acts of intentional misconduct or gross negligence by assigning a nurse practitioner to provide after-hours care to a patient with highly complex problems that were beyond nurse practitioner’s permissible scope of practice — Trial court erred by granting plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint to assert claim for punitive damages — Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable basis for award of punitive damages based on intentional conduct where evidence was insufficient to show that defendant’s president either knew or otherwise intended for nurse practitioner to independently order medical treatment for patient outside the scope of nurse practitioner’s practice without consulting president — Furthermore, there was insufficient evidence demonstrating that defendant’s president condoned or ratified nurse practitioner’s independent treatment with actual knowledge of a high probability that doing so would result in additional harm or death to patient — Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable basis for award of punitive damages based on gross negligence where facts of case did not show that defendant, through its president or nurse practitioner, evinced a reckless or conscious disregard of or indifference to human life
  • Torts — Negligent hiring — Punitive damages — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law in granting motion to amend complaint to add claim for punitive damages against employer of driver who crashed company car into plaintiff’s vehicle — Proffered evidence was not sufficient to establish reasonable basis for finding that defendant was grossly negligent when it allegedly hired employee without conducting adequate pre-employment screening, obtaining a driving and criminal history, and confirming that employee held valid driver’s license — Proffered evidence was either not directly related to allegation that employer was grossly negligent or sufficiently refuted by defendant
  • Torts — Negligent hiring — Punitive damages — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law in granting motion to amend complaint to add claim for punitive damages against employer of driver who crashed company car into plaintiff’s vehicle — Proffered evidence was not sufficient to establish reasonable basis for finding that defendant was grossly negligent when it allegedly hired employee without conducting adequate pre-employment screening, obtaining a driving and criminal history, and confirming that employee held valid driver’s license — Proffered evidence was either not directly related to allegation that employer was grossly negligent or sufficiently refuted by defendant

Blog Archives

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2023 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982