Opinion ID: 1389370
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Arising Out of the Employment

Text: The parties to this appeal agree that the appellants' injuries occurred in the course of their employment or in the scope of their employment, as those phrases have been interpreted by this court. Cottonwood Steel Corporation v. Hansen, supra; In re Willey, Wyo., 571 P.2d 248 (1977); In re Jensen, 63 Wyo. 88, 178 P.2d 897 (1947). Appellants, however, contend that while they suffered their injuries in the course of employment, the injuries did not aris[e] out of employment within the meaning of § 27-12-102(a)(xii), W.S. 1977. [4] We have held that, in order for this section of the Act to be complied with, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the course of employment, and that the causal connection is supplied    when there is a nexus between the injury and some condition, activity, environment or requirement of the employment. In re Willey, supra, 571 P.2d at 250. We have said:    [T]he injury is compensable if it arises out of and in the course of employment. This requirement emphasizes the need for a causal connection between the injury and the employment. Such a causal connection is supplied when there is a nexus between the injury and some condition, activity, environment or requirement of the employment. Parrott v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, 145 Ohio St. 66, 60 N.E.2d 660. See, Standard Oil Co. v. Smith, 56 Wyo. 537, 111 P.2d 132; In re Jensen, supra; Wyoming State Treasurer ex rel. Workmen's Compensation Department v. Boston, Wyo., 445 P.2d 548. Cf., White Ditching Company v. Giddeon, Wyo., 413 P.2d 45. It is this requirement, and only this requirement, which is envisioned by the language contained in § 27-311(n) [now § 27-12-102(a)(xii), W.S. 1977]. (Emphasis added.) In re Willey, supra, 571 P.2d at 250, quoted in Cottonwood Steel Corporation v. Hansen, supra, 655 P.2d at 1232-1233. Larson, in his treatise, Workmen's Compensation Law, says: In practice the `course of employment' and `arising out of employment' tests are not, and should not be, applied entirely independently; they are both parts of a single test of work-connection, and therefore deficiencies in the strength of one factor are sometimes allowed to be made up by strength in the other. 1A Larson, supra, at § 29.00, p. 5-354. It cannot be seriously argued that the facts of this case do not meet the nexus test quoted from our opinions supra. According to that test, the injury clearly arose out of the employment.