Court decides whether sedentary job caused worker’s death
July 1, 2011 by Fred HosierPosted in: In this week's e-newsletter, new court decision, Special Report, What do you think?, Worker health, Workers' comp
PDF As you assess risks in your workplace that could cause an employee’s death, should you add “sitting too long in front of a computer” to the list? A potential adverse effect of sitting too long at a job is key to a recent workers’ comp court case.
Cathleen Renner was a salaried manager for AT&T. When she worked at home, she sat at her computer for long hours to meet deadlines. Although her job was considered “nine-to-five,” she worked all hours of the day and night.
One day while working at home, Renner called 9-1-1 because she couldn’t breathe. She was pronounced dead when she arrived at the hospital. Cause of death: a pulmonary embolism.
Renner’s husband applied for dependency benefits under workers’ compensation.
A doctor, an expert for Renner’s widower, said sitting for an extended time can lead to a slowing or stoppage of blood flow which can lead to clots.
The doctor concluded that Renner’s sitting at her desk for long periods of time contributed to her death to an appreciable degree. The physician acknowledged that Renner had other risk factors, including obesity and using birth control pills.
The doctor reasoned that her inactivity while working was to blame because the blood clot was “unorganized” and developed within the period when she was working.
Acting as a medical witness for AT&T, a second doctor said Renner’s pulmonary embolism was caused by a combination of her various risk factors. But even that doctor admitted “it would certainly be less likely” for Renner to have a pulmonary embolism that day had she not been working.
A workers’ compensation judge concluded that the claim was compensable because most of her inactivity occurred while she was working.
AT&T appealed the decision to a state court.
Sedentary at work or home?
The court said there were two questions that needed to be addressed:
- whether Renner’s lack of movement at work was more severe than her lack of movement in her daily living, and
- whether the inactivity at work was an appreciable factor in causing her pulmonary embolism.
Renner’s husband testified that Cathleen wasn’t the type to sit at home and watch TV. She was always on the go, picking up their kids from activities, meeting friends, etc.
The court also found there was sufficient evidence that Renner had worked through the night in the hours before her embolism.
The judges also said an autopsy report, which indicated Renner’s clot was unorganized, supported the testimony that the embolism was recently formed, most likely five to seven hours before her death.
The court ruled that the requirements of New Jersey’s workers’ comp law for a claim for injury or death from a cardiovascular cause had been met.
For those reasons, the court upheld the decision by the workers’ compensation judge to award dependency benefits to Renner’s widower.
A side note: The decision in this case comes on the heels of an American Cancer Society study that showed sitting too much can shave years off your life.
What do you think about the court’s decision? Let us know in the Comments Box below.
(Renner v. AT&T, Superior Crt. of NJ, 6/27/11)
SafetyNewsAlert.com delivers the latest Safety news once a week to the inboxes of over 270,000 Safety professionals.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to SafetyNewsAlert!
Tags: computer, dependency benefits, pulmonary embolism, sedentary job, Workers' comp
Loading ...
July 5th, 2011 at 8:49 am
There is no way that this should be compensable. The employee, while working for AT&T, was working at home. It sounds like this was a regular occurrence and without further information we have to assume that she had made a conscious decision to work at rather than commute to an office. There are also a lot of unanswered questions too such as: Why was she working an all nighter if her job was a 9-5 job? It says that she was obese, how obese? Did she know that she was supposed to be working 9-5? Did she take scheduled breaks and lunch? Did she receive any training from AT&T explaining the expected work hours?
Base on the limited information available here it sounds like the company was allowing her to telecommute to make her life a little better and save her money. It also sounds like she procrastinated and had to pull an all nighter to get her expected work finished on time. Additionally, when working at home, she has to be her own supervisor and manager, almost as if she is self employeed. This is probably another case of the legal system run amuck. It is sad that she died and that she has left behind a husband but that is no reason to penalize the company.
July 5th, 2011 at 10:15 am
Was this a computer with internet capabilities? If it was, a check of Recent History might give some insight as to whether how much time was work vs leisure. Why is it the company’s responsibility? Were there chains and shackles involved? Again, “her other risk factors” are not given much significance. Soon it will be the LAST fast food megaburger caused the death, not the last thousand. This claim is right up there with the “employee” who stepped on her own dog in her own home, but won compensation. Once again perceived “deep pockets” lose out to lack of personal responsibility.
A business’ only response will end up being to remove an employee’s ability to work from home. The majority loses because of the actions of a few. Will we then see comp cases where it’s the company’s fault that an employee was late for work, had an accident & was injured, all because the company required a set time to report?
I probably just started some comp lawyer’s mouth watering……
July 5th, 2011 at 10:32 am
My hopes and dreams of someday becoming an entrepeneur fade a little bit every time I see a decision such as this.
July 5th, 2011 at 10:39 am
She was always on the go, picking up their kids from activities, meeting friends, etc. The activities described in the passage are sedentary activities, you do not become obese over night, I have a difficult time understanding how the courts could attribute this condition to work when it is apparent that the life style she choose is her life style. I guess the one question I have is, If she hadn’t been working at the time of the embolism would it still be considered work related?
July 5th, 2011 at 10:43 am
I completely disagree with MelvinM.
I know remote employees that are so overloaded with work that they consistently work 12-16 hours a day because the company and its management do not allocate proper resources causing more work for the remote staff. In these cases, the entire family suffers as that remote employee sacrifices their home lives to produce for the company. These are the employees that stay until the job is complete and do not punch a clock like MelvinM obviously suggests…
Outside the box, I could see two viewpoints that would be up for debate… 1. It may be the employee’s fault for not advising their management that they are putting in way too many hours of work and not receiving the necessary help to accomplish the job. 2. Company’s fault for overworking their salaried employees and not monitoring the work based on time required reports, i.e. if the employee is over producing and only salary, then the company should pay for the fact they did not monitor the work load of the employee.
That’s what Management does. They work for both the company AND the employee. Support the company and accomplish the task. Support the employees and make sure that they have enough resources to complete the tasks.
I’ve heard this kind of thing on long plane flights where people sit for 10+ hours and arrive dead due to an embolism.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:15 pm
I think the court is 100% wrong and it will send a message to companies to eliminate people who work from home. Was the employee given ergonomic training that says to take breaks every 20to 30 mins when working at a computer. The story states she led an active lifestyle, but she was overweight. Picking up the kids was this on company time or during a break? If she was working an all nighter was she on salary or an hourly worker who would get overtime? If she is salary then she is always on the clock. What about people who are in wheelchairs. They are living a sedentary lifestyle if they have an embolism with this be work related. Is this going to set a trend?
July 5th, 2011 at 4:31 pm
The court is 100% wrong. Of course, I would’ve said Casey Anthony was guilty. So what do I know???
July 6th, 2011 at 4:32 pm
I honestly can’t believe what I have just read! It IS very sad to lose a loved one. But please tell me that this decision is going to be appealed. I deal with worker compensation claims, it’s guaranteed money, checks won’t bounce. This decision doesn’t open up a new door it opens up a whole new world within workers comp. As said before me it will close a job market, or put guide lines in place that will eliminate certain individuals which will make more work for the Bureau of labor and Industries and any other discrimination agency. To me it sounds like the judges and courts are also unorganized! No disrespect for the woman who passed is meant. As was mentioned before I hope they checked her computer hard-drive, phone records, etc. I have no idea what her daily work load was to show on AT&T work logs. I can see it now, TV add DO YOU WORK FROM HOME FOR A MAJOR CORPORATION, HAVE YOU EVER HAD ANY TYPE OF MEDICAL ISSUE! CALL 1-800- MAKE ME AND YOU MONEY!
July 6th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
I’m not just thinking about remote/telecommuting employees, after reading this verdict. What if this happened in the office onn the job? Do supervisors now have to direct computer/telephone-bound employees to get up and walk for 10 minutes ever half hour? What about truck drivers or others routinely on the road (sitting while driving)? Do we have to build ergonomic workstations that have an automatic “eject” sequence every 30 minutes? SGUY is correct… this opens up a whole world in WC. For this alone, I side with Jason… I’ll never be able to start my own business with these kind of “free money” decisions made by the courts.
July 7th, 2011 at 12:19 am
As a work comp administrator with decades experience, I have read this case summary several times and I have applied my knowledge regarding work comp laws of compensability that are backed up by every attorney I have worked with. As such, this is clearly a compensable case as in general an employee is covered by work comp completely while doing ANY work AT ANY TIME for the “good of the company” unless she was forbidden in writing from the company to not work from home or at certain times and even then an ALJ could rule in favor of the employee. It doesn’t matter if she worked from home or the office. Did not matter if she was working at night - she was doing work for the good and benefit of the company when the physical cause of death was being formed as a result of prolonged sitting and working. The company had no legal grounds in this case and the court upheld their decision to award survivor benefits. This court followed the “letter of the laws” as applicable to compensability in similar cases (case law) and awarded a fair benefit to her surviving spouse.
To LA Ergo Guy: Her being overweight doesn’t matter with work comp and shouldn’t (it can and is deemed to be a protected class under ADA in most instances). If her prolonged work and sitting aggravated an underlying pre-existing health condition related to her weight (contributing to the cause of death), it is still cmpensable as long as she was doing work for the “good and benefit” of the company at the time of occurrence. Again, the court knew the laws as I do, evaluated expert medical evidence and applied the laws accurately in this case.
July 15th, 2011 at 9:29 am
Just another ridiculous court decision. The whole judicial system is a waste of time & money….
their results speak for themselves.