In Greenblatt v. Symantec Corp, 287 Or App 506 (2017), the worker was injured after playing basketball during a break at work when, while walking off the court just before going back to work, he jumped up and slapped the backboard, twisting his knee in the process. The worker contended that he slapped the backboard “out of happiness,” in part for his “own good” and in part because he “was pleased with his good day at work.” Id. at 509. Among other things, the worker argued that, in determining whether he engaged in the basketball activity “primarily for his personal pleasure,” the court should weigh his motivation for engaging in the activity against the employer’s “work-related interests” in providing the basketball court and associated equipment. The court rejected this argument, agreeing with the employer that the determination should turn on the worker’s “primary motivation for the activity itself,” not the employer’s motivation in providing the court or equipment.
In Sedgwick Claims management Services v. Norwood, 275 Or App 718 (2015), the worker, an office assistant, offered to mail a letter by walking about three blocks to the post office. The employer knew that the worker enjoyed walking, and so accepted the worker’s offer. Otherwise, the employer would have taken the letter to the post office. The worker was seriously injured when she was crossing a street near the post office and was struck by a car. The employer denied the worker’s claim for her injuries on the theory that they resulted from the “recreational activity” of walking, and that the worker had performed the activity “primarily for [her] personal pleasure.” The court affirmed the Board’s finding that the worker’s primary motivation in walking to the post ofiice was the work-related purpose of mailing the letter, not the recreational activity of walking. The court commented, “That claimant derived recreational enjoyment from performing a work task and volunteered to perform it does not mean that the task lost its significance as a work-related task.” Id. at 723.
In Summer Cook, 69 Van Natta 1227 (2017), dismissed by settlement, 70 Van Natta 205 (2018), the Board concluded that a flight attendant who attended an exercise class while on a 17-hour layover between flights did so “primarily for [her] personal pleasure” deSpite her testimony that she did not consider exercise “pleasurable.” The Board emphasized that “the focus of ORS 656.005(7)(b)(B) is not whether the activity is subjectively pleasurable, but whether the activity was incidental to work.” The Board found that the principal reason the worker attended the exercise class at which she was injured was not any work-related reason, but was “personal and unrelated to traveling (‘working’).”
In Brooke A. Woodward, 69 Van Natta 266 (2017), the Board concluded that ORS 656.005(7)(b)(B) did not preclude the worker’s claim for injuries sustained after smoking marijuana at her place of employment as a receptionist for a medical marijuana dispensary. The Board found that the worker did not perform the activity “primarily for her personal pleasure,” but because the marijuana was supplied and encouraged by the employer in connection with a “business plan orientation meeting.”
In Laura Brown, 68 Van Natta 774 (2016), the Workers’ Compensation Board held that the claim of a worker injured while participating in an employer-initiated walking program was not excluded under ORS 65 6.005(7)(b)(B). The employer did not require, but strongly encouraged participation in its walking program, and organized teams and awarded prizes for individuals and teams based on their levels of participation. Punch cards for these purposes could he earned by walking routes designated by the employer. One of the routes was indoors and within the employer’s leased premises, while the other was outdoors and just off the employer’s premises.
At the time of her injury, the worker was on an unpaid lunch period and was walking on the off~premises route when she stepped in a low spot in the pavement and twisted her knee. The worker indicated that she liked walking and had often walked on breaks at work on her own before the employer’s walking program began. However, she also indicated that she did not like using the routes designated by the employer due to congestion, shoppers, carts, and vehicles, but used them anyway for purposes of the program.
In concluding that the worker’s injury was compensable, the board first addressed whether the worker’s injury was excluded under ORS 656.005(7)(b)(B). The board concluded that the injury was not excluded based on a finding that the employer so encouraged and directed the walking activity and the route on which the worker was injured that the worker’s personal reasons for engaging in the activity were secondary to the employer’s reasons for encouraging and directing it. Hence, the board concluded that the worker’s walking activity at the time of the injury was not “primarily for the worker’s personal pleasure.”
In Zachary B. Severson, 64 Van Natta 1525, corrected, 64 Van Natta 1533 (2012), the worker sustained a nose injury while playing basketball with other employees, including supervisors, on the employer’s premises during frequent “down times” between truck deliveries at the employer’s warehouse. The worker testified that he played basketball with co-workers because it was “fun,” “popular” with the employees, and because he was “waiting for work.” However, given the significant work—related interests in allowing the basketball activity and other factors, the Board concluded that the employer had failed to prove that “personal pleasure” was the worker’s primary motivation for his basketball activity.