Court Opinion

ID: 9797587
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:24:52.151667+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:57:20.663298
License: Public Domain

SCHUMAN, J.,
dissenting.
At issue in this case is whether claimant’s logbook entry — his name, the date, and the phrase “pain in right wrist” “apprise [s] the employer when and where and how” the injury occurred. Obviously the entry meets the “when *244and where” requirements. Unlike the majority, I believe that it meets the “how” requirement as well.
Central to my conclusion is the fact that the logbook was located at the work site and its express and exclusive purpose was to record on-the-job injuries; it was a first-aid logbook, not a logbook in which employees could notify supervisors of faulty equipment, suggest more efficient procedures, or anything else. Thus, in effect, by entering “pain in right wrist” in the logbook, claimant’s writing informed employer that he had pain in his right wrist due to an on-the-job injury. Under the particular circumstances of this case — a logbook dedicated exclusively to recording on-the-job injuries — claimant’s entry amounted to the equivalent of a written form to employer declaring: “My name is Buzz V. On April 30,1998,1 injured my right wrist. I did it while at work here in the warehouse.” As answers to the hypothetical questions, “Where did you injure your wrist?” and “How did you injure your wrist?,” the response “I did it while at work here in the warehouse” is not precise or articulate, but it is an answer.
Typically, the answer to a question asking “where” an injury occurred is a noun stating a location, and the answer to a question asking “how” an injury occurred is a narrative describing events. “While at work here in the warehouse,” which, I emphasize, is the answer necessarily implied by claimant’s written entry in employer’s logbook, states both a location and an event. The fact that, in some circumstances, two inquiries may be answered by a single reply does not make the inquiries generically redundant, so long as there are other circumstances in which the inquiries could elicit distinct responses. In my opinion, claimant’s entry satisfactorily (albeit vaguely) answers the statutory questions. I would therefore reverse.1

 Neither this dissent nor the majority takes a position on whether claimant could have succeeded by raising an argument that employer was estopped from basing a denial on claimant’s method of reporting his injury where claimant followed employer’s stated reporting policy.