Injury suffered during functional capacity evaluation is compensable under workers' comp if evaluation is employment prerequisite

Law Reporter, May 1999

Pittman v. International Paper Co., 510 vS.E.2d 705 (N.C. Ct. App. 1999).

A North Carolina appellate court held that an injury suffered during a functional capacity evaluation (FCE) is compensable under workers' comp if the evaluation is a prerequisite for returning to work.

Here, Pittman missed several months of work due to an allegedly job-related injury. When he returned, the company nurse arranged for him to see a doctor, who recommended an FCE. Pittman performed the FCE, which required lifting weights, among other things. Several days later, he complained to the nurse about back pain and was put on light duty work. He filed a workers' comp claim, alleging injury from the FCE. The claim was denied. The full state workers' comp commission later awarded benefits. Affirming, the appellate court noted that an injury must arise out of and occur in the course of employment to receive compensation under the state workers' comp act. Citing case law, the court said an injury is compensable if it is "fairly traceable" to the employment or if "any reasonable relationship to employment exists." Where an element of actual compulsion comes from the employer, the work connection is beyond question, the court said.

Here, the company nurse's notes said the FCE would be conducted before plaintiff could return to work, and she allegedly told the therapist who conducted the evaluation that it would determine whether plaintiff could return to work. Therefore, the court concluded, there was evidence to support the commission's finding that defendant had required plaintiff to undergo the FCE as incident to his continued employment. The court found the FCE was in the scope of plaintiff's employment, and, thus, compensable under workers' comp.

Plaintiffs Counsel:

*James B. Gillespie Jr., Elnington, N.C.

[ Comment: For cases addressing whether an injury arose in the course of employment, see Appeal of Balamotis, 40 ATLA L. Rep. 108 (Apr. 1997); State v. Espinoza, 40 ATLA L. Rep. 109 (Apr. 1997); and Phillips v. John Morrell er Co., 40 ATLA L. Rep. 109 (Apr. 1997).]

[Documents in the Pittman case are available through the Court Documents section in the back section of this issue, courtesy of Mr. Gillespie.]