### IN THE S UP REME COURT OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON A pr il 5, 200 5 S es sio n

GA TH A BL A KE N SH IPv. A M ER IC A N OR D N A N C E S Y ST EM S, LL S, d /b /a

MIL AN ARMY A MMUNITI ON PLANT

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court of Carroll County

No. 4516, C. Cr eed Mc Ginley, Judge

No. W2004-00866-SC- R3-CV- F iled May 12, 2005

The e mp lo y e e in th is w o rk e r s ’ c o mp e n s a ti o n c a s e in ju r e d h e r b a c k w h il e ta

k in g a n u p p er body

s tr e n g t h t e s to n t h e e m p l o ye r ’ s p r e m i s e s

. T h e e m p l o ye e , w h o w a s l a i d o f f att h e t i m e o f

t h e i n j u r y, voluntarily

took the streng th test as part of the application proc ess for new jobs being cre ated in the

e mpl oy e r’ s f

a c tory . T he tr ia l c ou rt

fo un d th a t the e mpl oy e e ’s inj ury wa s n ot c omp e ns able be c aus e it d id n ot a

ri se ou t of

he r e mpl oyme nt. Th e e mpl oy e e ’s app e a l w a s tr a ns fe rr e d to the fu ll Su pr e me Court prior to the Special Worker s’ Compensation Appea ls Panel hearing or al ar g umen t . The dispositi ve question bef

ore this Court is whether the evidenc e pre ponderates ag ainst the trial court’ s finding that the employ ee’ s injury did not arise out of he r employ ment. After car efully examining the rec ord and the rele vant authorities, we hold that the evidenc e does not pre ponderate ag ainst the trial cou rt ’s fi nd ing that th e e mpl oy e e ’s inj ury didno t a

ri se ou t of

he r e mpl oyme nt. We a lso

c o n c l u d e t h a tt h e e m p l o ye e ’ s i n j u r y d i d n o to c c u r i n t h e c o u r s e o f h e r e m p l o ym e n t

. A c c o r d i n g l y,
we a ffirm the tria l court’s judg ment.

Tenn. Cod e Ann. § 50-6-225(e ); Judgm ent of the Circuit Court Aff irm ed

F RAN K F. D R OW OT A , I I I
, , C. J.
, d e li v e r e d th e o p in io n o f th e c o u r t, inw h ic h E. R I L EY A NDE R S ON , A DOL PH O A. B I RCH , J R ., J ANI CE M. H O LDER and W I L L I AM M. B ARKE R , J J ., joined.

J eff rey P. Boy d, J ackson, Te nnessee , for the a ppellant, Gatha

Bla nkenship.

Fr ed Collins, Mi lan, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellee, Am er ican Or dnance Sy stems, LL C, d/b/a Milan Army Am mun iti on Pla nt.

OP IN IONT h e e m p lo ye e w a s c a lled b a c k to w o rk in S e p te m b e r 2 0 0 3 , b u t she w a s la id o ff a g a in, this tim e p e rm a n e n tly, 1

i n D ece mb er 200 3. U po n re s umi ng her dut i es i n Sept emb er 200 3, s he was not r equi r ed t o do an y he avy l i f t i ng

. Af t er he r t erm i na t i o n in D ec em b er 2 0 0 3 t he em p l o yee go t a jo b i n a no t he r f ac t o ry m ak i ng ri ve t s fo r ch ainsa w s.

-2- I. F ac tu al a nd P r oc e dur al B ac kgr ound Th e e mpl oy e e , G a tha

B la nk e ns hip , w a s a

fi fty -f ou r- y e ar- oldhig h s c ho ol g ra du a te a t th e tim e of trial. He r employ ment history consisted of produc tion wor k in various fa ctories. In 1987, the

e mpl oy e e beg an wo rking fo r the e mpl oy e r i n th is c a se , A me ri c a n O rd na nc e Sy ste ms, LL C, d /b/ a Milan Army

Ammunition P lant. The employ ee’ s job was to assemble bullets. He r duties did not

re q u i re h ea v y

l i ft i n g.

I n Fe bruary

2002, the employ ee w as temporarily laid off due to a decr ease in the employ er’ s business. Whil e the e mploy ee w as on lay off status, the e mploy er posted a notice at its fa cility that 1

me dic a l e va luatio ns fo r u pp e r bo dy str e ng th wo uld be pe rf orme d o n th os e e mpl oy e e s in te re ste d in apply ing for new jobs be ing cre ated in the plant. The new positions had s p ec i fi c li fting

re qu ir e me nts . T hu s, in o rd e r t o q ua lif y a s a ca nd id ate for

the ne w j ob s, app lic a nts ha d to pa ss a streng th test, which entailed r epetitive lifting of 25 pounds and occ asional lifting of 70 pounds. The
test was available to employ ees only , not the g ener al public. The posted notice instructed employ ees int e re ste d inthe ne w j ob s to c on ta c t th e e mpl oy e r’ s h uman r e so ur c e s d e pa rt me nt.

The e mploy ee did not see the post ed n o t i ce prior to being laid off but hea rd about it from friends a fter she was laid off

. Although no one in a supervisory capa city ever told the employ ee that she wa s require d to take the streng th test, she understood based on conver sations with friends that she neede d to take the test in orde r to kee p her c urre nt job. The employ ee a cknowledg ed, howe ver, that th e str e ng th t e st w a s n ot a c on dit ionof he r c on tin ue d e mpl oyme nt b e c aus e sh e wa s e ve ntu a lly called ba ck to work de spite not passing the test.

Th e e mpl oy e e too k th e str e ng th t e st o n M arc h 7, 2 00 2, on the e mpl oy e r’ s p re mis e s. Th e te st, which took one hour

to take, involved lifting weig hts from various he ights a nd positi o n s

. The employ ee w as not co m pensate d to take the test, a nd she did not pass it. She was re ceiving unemploy ment benef

its when she took the test.

I mme diate ly

up on c omp le tin g the str e ng th t e st, the e mpl oy e e be g a n e xpe ri e nc ing we akn e ss inh e r b a c k

. By the ti me s h e g o t t o h e r c ar , th e w e ak n e s s h a d d e v e lo p e d in to p a in

. O v e r th e n e xt

s e v e r a l d a ys , t h e p a i n w o r s e n e d a n d r a d i a t e d d o w n h e r l e g

. T h e e m p l o ye e t e s t i f i e d t h a tw i t h i n d a ys of taking the streng th test she was conce rned that she had “dama g ed something” in he r bac k. Over the next several we eks, the e mploy ee attempted to treat he rself but to no avail. When it became clea r to the employ ee that she was in “some se rious trouble” w ith her bac k, she soug ht medical attention at a hospital eme rg ency

room on May

19, 2002. She g ave hospital e mploy ees a history of having back pain sinc e lifting weig hts during the streng th test. She gave the sa me history to her phy sician on May 21, 2002. The e mploy ee w as diag nosed with a bulg ing disc . She was g iven a pe rmane nt phy sical impairment rating of 5% to the whole body

.T he emp l oy er r ai s ed as a def ens e t he emp l oy ee’ s f ai l ur e t o gi ve not i ce of t he i nj ur y wi t hi n 30 day s as r equi r ed 2 by T en n es s ee Code An n ot at ed s ec t i on 50- 6- 201. T h e emp l o y er con t en ds on a ppea l t h at t h e empl oy ee s h ou l d n ot be al l o wed t o recove r even i f her i njury arose out o f

and i n t he co urs e o f

he r em p l o y m ent b ecause she di d not t i m el y repo rt the inj u ry. In li g h t o f o u r c o n c lus io n tha t t h e e m p lo ye e ’s inj u ry d id n o t ar ise o u t o f an d in the c o u rs e o f he r e m p lo ym e n t, the issu e o f t im e ly no tice is p re te rm itt e d

.

It is un c le a r fro m the re c o rd ho w the e m p lo ye e w a s a b le to re c e ive un e m p lo ym e n t b e n e fit s w h ile still 3

e m p lo ye d . W e infe r th a t she w a s n o t b e ing p a id b y the e m p lo ye r w h ile sh e w a s la id o ff

.
-3- Acc ording to the employ ee, she reported the injury to the employ er on May 21, 2002. The 2 employ er de nied the cla im. This sui t resulted.

Paul H arriso n, the e mpl oy e r’ s h uman r e so ur c e s mana g e r , t e s ti f i e d th at t akin g the str e ng th t e st was voluntary

and that the employ ee was not paid to take the test. Har rison also testified that taking the t es t wa s n o t a condit ion of the employ ee’ s continued employment or her return to wor

k. He stated that the stre ng th test w as open only to e mploy ees, not the g ener al public. He a lso stated that employ ees on te mporary

lay off st at u s, such as the e mploy ee in this ca se, we re still reg arde d as employ ees of

the company

for 120 day s, at which point they wer e terminated if there was insuffic ient work to ca ll them back. This ar rang ement wa s dictated by a collec tive barg aining ag ree ment betwee n the employ ee’ s union and the employ er. In any event, Harrison testified that the employ ee was still employ ed wh en s h e took t he streng th test on March 7, 2002, a point concede d by

the

e mpl oy e r’ s la wy e r at tria l. 3

The trial c ourt, noting that “this is an unusual ca se,” f ound that the employ ee’ s back injury
was not compensa

ble because it di d not arise out of he r employment. The trial c ourt explained that “per haps she ha d g ood motives in submi tting to the test bec ause she thought by doing so that she could s e e k b e tt e r e mp lo y me n t w ith in h e r c o mp a n y o r mo r e im me d iate e mp lo y me n t w ith in her company since she’s on lay off. But there ’s no question in the court’s mind that there ’s no element of compulsion to this.” Thus, the trial court found that taking the test was voluntary . The trial c ourt also found it sig nificant that the employ ee w as not compensated to take the te st. The trial court made a provisional finding of 25% pe rmane nt partial disability to the body

as a w hole in case the court’s finding reg arding compensa bilitywas re verse d on appea l.

Th e e mpl oy e e app e a le d th e de nia l of be ne fi ts. The app e a l w a s tr a ns fe rr e d to the fu ll Sup re me Cou rt prio r t o o ra l arg ume nt b e fo rethe Spe c ia l Wor ke rs ’ C omp e ns a tio n A pp e a ls Pane l. We n ote t h a t t h e s t a n d ar d o f r e v i e w i n t h i s c a s e i s d e n o v o u p o n t h e r e c o r d o f t h e tr i a l c ou rt , acc ompanied by a presumption of t he correc tness of t he findings, unl ess the pre ponderance of the evidenc e is otherwise . Tenn. Code Ann. § 50- 6-225(e )(2) (Supp. 2004).

II. Ana lys is Ma ny c a se s h a ve re a c he d th is C ou rt c on c e rn ing the statut ory re qu ir e me nts that a compensa ble injury arise out of and occ ur in the cour se of the e mploy ment. See Te nn. Code Ann. § 5 0- 6- 10 2( 13 )( Sup p. 20 04 ) ( to b e e lig ibl e fo r w or ke rs ’ c omp e ns a tio n b e ne fi ts, a n e mpl oy e e mus t-4-

suffe r an “ injury

by acc ident arisi n g o u t o f and in the course of employ ment”). Te nnessee is not unique in this reg ard, for 43 states require that the i njury arise out of and occ ur in the cour se of the

e mpl oyme nt. 1 L ars on ’s Wor ke rs ’ Compe ns a tio n L a w § 3. 01 (2 00 4) . Ind e e d, the bu lk o f w or ke rs ’ compensation lit igation center s on these two re quirements. I d. As one c ommentator has obse rved,

“ [f]e w g ro up s o f s ta tut ory wo rd s in the his tory

of la w h a ve ha d to bea

r the we ig ht of su c h a mo un ta in of interpr etation as ha s been he aped upon this slender foundation.” I d.

I n Tenne ssee, a s in most j urisdictions, the statutory require ments that the injury arise out of

a ndoc cur in th e cou rs e of the e mpl oyme nt a

reno t syno nymou s, a lth ou g h b othe le me nts e xist to

ensure a wor

k connec tion to the i n

j u ry for whic h the employ ee se eks bene fits. See Sandlin v. Gentry , 300 S.W .2d 897, 901 (Tenn. 1957) . An injury occur s in the course of employ ment if it takes place while the employ ee w as per forming a duty he or she was e mploy ed to p er fo rm. Fink v. Caudle, 856 S.W.2d 952, 958 (Tenn. 1993). That is, an injury occur s in the course of employ ment

“ wh e n it take s p la c e wi thi n th e pe ri odof the e mpl oyme nt, a t a

pla c e wh e rethe e mpl oy e e re a so na bly may be, and w hile the employ ee is fulf illing work duties or

eng ag ed in doing something inc idental there to.” 1 L arson’ s Workers’ C o m p en sation L aw § 12 ( 2004). Thus, the c ourse of employ ment

re q u i re m en tfo cu s es o n t h e t i m e, p l ac e, an d ci rc u m s t an ce s o f t h e i n j u ry

. Hi l l v

. E agl e B en d M fg. I nc., 942 S.W.2d 483, 487 (Tenn. 1997).

I n contra st, a

rising out of employ ment ref ers to c ausation. Reeser v. Yellow Fr ei gh t S y s., I nc., 938 S.W.2d 690, 692 (Tenn. 1997). An injury arises out of e mploy ment when ther e is a c ausal

con n e c ti o n b e tw e e n th e c o n d it io n s u n d e r w h ic h th e w o rk is r e q u ir e d to b e p e r f o r me d and the resulting injury

. Fritts v. Safety Nat’l Cas. Corp.,

__ S.W .3d

__ , 2005 WL 926897 (Tenn. 2005)

. The mer e pre sence of the e mploy ee at the place of injury beca use of the employ ment is not enoug h, as the injury

must result from a dang er or hazard peculiar to the work or because d by a risk inher ent in the natur e of

the wo rk . T ho rn ton v. RCA Se rv

. Co.
, 22 1 S.W. 2d 95 4, 95 5 (T e nn . 1 94 9) . T hu s, “an injury purely coincidenta l, or contemporaneous, or c ollatera l, with the employ ment . . . will not

c au s e t h e i n

j u r y .

. . t o b e c o n s i d e r e d a s ar i s i n g o u to f t h e e m p l o ym e n t

. ” J a c k s o n v

. C l ark & F a y, I nc., 270 S.W.2d 389, 390 (Tenn. 1954).

I n th is c a se , th e e mpl oy e r ar g ue s tha t th e e mpl oy e e ’s inj ury didno t ari se ou t of

a ndoc c ur

in the cour se of her employ ment beca use her participation in the streng th test was strictly voluntary and she wa s not paid to take the test. The employ er also arg ues t hat t he employ ee’ s job from which she was laid off and to which she was late r ca lled back did not havelifting re quirements. The employ er further asserts that the streng th test was not a condition of the e mp l o y ee ’s continued employment

or re turn to work.

The e mploy ee r esponds t hat her injury should be compensa

ble bec ause the employ er paid for the streng th test, s ch ed uled and c onducted the te st on the employ er’ s premises, and the test was available only

to employ ees, not the g ener al pub l i c. T h u s , the employ ee c ontends that her participa ti o n inth e te s t p r o v id e d a b e n e f it to th e e mp lo y e r

b y id e n ti f y in g a g r o u p o f p e r s o ns ph y sic a lly

c apa ble of pe rf ormin g the ne w j ob s at th e plant.H a rr iso n tes tif ie d tha t t h e re w e re 3 0 o p e n ing s a n d 5 0 0 e m p lo ye e s in th e p la n t. 4

-5- L ike the trial court, we are persua ded that the employ ee’ s back injury did not arise out of he r employ ment beca

use t he record fails to establish a causal connection betwee n the conditi ons of the employ ee’ s job assembling bullets a nd her ba ck injury . The e mploy ee’ s injury did not result from

a d an ger o r haz ard pe culiar to he r work or was not caused by

a risk inher ent in the nature of her work. Evidenc e that the employ er paid for the streng th test and adminis tere d it on its premises does not trump the fac t that the injury did not occur w hile the employ ee w as performing her job making bul l ets or a ta sk incidental there to. Rather than r esulting f rom a da ng er or

hazard pe culiar to he r
wo rk or be ing c aus e d by a ri sk inh e re nt in the natur e of he r wo rk , the e mpl oy e e wa s in jur e d w hil e
un de rt akin g a

vo lun tary te st – fo r wh ic h she wa s not co mpe ns a te d – a s p art of the app lic a tio n p ro c e ss fo r a job sh e didno t ha ve a nd ma y no t ha ve g ott e n e ve n if

sh e pa sse d th e te st. I n s ho rt , th is c a se 4 fa lls wi thi n th e ru le that a n in jury wh ic h is mer e ly c oin c ide nta l, c on te mpo rane ou s, or c oll a te ra l w ith the employ ment is not compensable. Jackson, 270 S.W.2d at 390.

Simi larl y , the re c or d e sta

bli sh e s th a t th e e mpl oy e e ’s ba c k in jury didno t oc c ur

in the c ou rs e of her employ ment. The re cord de monstrates that taking the streng th test was strictly voluntary . As stated by the trial court, the re was “no element of compulsion” on the employ er’ s part. The posted notice dire cted e mploy ees inter ested in t he new positions to contac t human resource s. The notice did not require e mploy ees to take the test or otherwise apply for the new jobs. More over, the rec ord is unrefute d that the streng th te st w as not a condition of the employ ee’ s continued employment or being called ba ck to work. Further, the employ ee was not paid t o take the test, and her curr ent job did not have lifting require ments. The test wa s merely for the pur

pose of de termining if employ ees int e re ste d inbe ing c on sid e re d f or the ne w j ob s me t th e ph y sic a l qu a lif ic a tio ns fo r tho se po sit ion s. Whil e it i s tr

ue that th e e mpl oy e e ’s pa rt ic ipatio n in th e tes t ben e fi tte d th e e mpl oy e r b y he lpi ng it ide nti fy pe rs on s p hy sic a lly

c apa ble of pe rf ormin g the ne w j ob s, it is e qu a lly true that the inj ury did
not occur while the employ ee w as per forming a duty that she was employ ed or require d to perform or eng ag ed in a task inc idental t h er et o

. Acc ording ly , the trial court corre ctly declined to a war d be ne fi ts.

III. Conclusi on F or the re a so ns state d a

bo ve , w e ho ld that th e e mpl oy e e ’s inj ury did no t ari se ou t of

a ndin the c ou rs e of

he r e mpl oyme nt w ithAm e ri c a n O rd na nc e Sy ste ms, LL S, d /b/ a Mi lan A rm y Ammunition P lant. Acc ording ly , the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affirmed. Costs are a ssessed

a g a i n s tG a t h a

B l a n k e n s h i p a n d h e r

s u r e t y, f o r w h i c h e x e c u t i o n m a y i s s u e i f n e c e s s ar y.

__________________________________________ F R A N K F

. D R O W O T A
, III
, CH IEF JUSTI CE-6-