Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, 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 Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • 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 — Commercial property — Coverage — Business losses — Business interruption — All-risk commercial policy providing coverage for “direct physical loss of or damage to” property or “direct physical loss or damage to” property does not insure against losses and expenses incurred by business as result of COVID-19 — Under Florida law there is no coverage because COVID-19 did not cause tangible alteration of the insured properties
  • Insurance — Commercial property — Coverage — Business income losses — Trial court’s finding that policy covering loss of business income due to the suspension of operations caused by “direct physical loss or damage to property” required some tangible alteration to insured property comported with common meaning of its terms and context of policy as a whole — Policy did not cover economic losses insured suffered when it suspended its operations due to COVID-19 pandemic — No error in dismissing with prejudice insured’s petition for declaratory relief and damages
  • Torts — Negligent security — Sovereign immunity — Agency — Limited immunity — Punitive damages — Amendment of complaint — Action brought against company which contracted with county to provide security services and its employee — Defendant company was entitled to limited sovereign immunity under 768.28(5) where county asserted a degree of control over defendant’s employees — Fact that defendant’s employee was working alone rather than side-by-side with county employees did not change level of control county had over defendant employee as evidenced by contract between county and defendant — Absolute immunity under section 768.28(9) applied to defendant employee, but did not apply to defendant company because it is a corporation — No abuse of discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend complaint to add count for punitive damages where record is devoid of evidence that defendant employee engaged in intentional misconduct or gross negligence
  • Insurance — Attorney’s fees — Assignee’s action against insurer to recover payment for construction work performed on insured property following hurricane damage — Court adopts magistrate’s report and recommendation concluding that Section 627.7152(10), Florida Statutes, which repeals assignee’s standing to recover attorney’s fees under section 627.428, does not apply in instant case where both issuance of policy and assignment agreement predated effective date of statute — Whether relevant date for purposes of applying statute is date policy was issued or date assignment agreement was entered into need not be resolved under circumstances — Motion to strike plaintiff’s claims for attorney’s fees is denied
  • Torts — Dog bite — Negligence — Sheriffs — Sovereign immunity — Action alleging deputy sheriff was negligent in handling K-9 that bit plaintiff while attending a public event — Trial court erred in dismissing complaint against sheriff on ground that action was barred by sovereign immunity — Although a plaintiff may not rely on section 767.04 when suing a state agency for a dog bite because it is a strict liability statute, a plaintiff may bring such a suit in common-law negligence — Complaint adequately stated a cause of action for negligence under common law principles — Court rejects argument that plaintiff placed himself in zone of risk by approaching area occupied by deputy and police dog, and that because deputy did not move in proximity to plaintiff there was no zone of risk created by conduct of deputy — Deputy created the zone of risk by patrolling the venue with his K-9 — Whether the deputy was walking around or standing still was irrelevant — Because plaintiff was in a public location he had the right to walk where he wanted, including right up to the deputy, and, unless warned by the deputy to move away, plaintiff had a reasonable expectation that the dog would not bite him — Lawsuit was not barred by sovereign immunity where, although the decision to patrol the public venue with K-9s may have been a discretionary function, the act of patrolling the venue with K-9s was operational

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 © 2022 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982