Was Firefighter Injured Doing Laundry Entitled to Workers’ Comp?

What Do You Think?

Firefighting is a difficult and dangerous job. So, when a firefighter gets hurt at work, one assumes the injury occurred when he or she was heroically battling a dangerous conflagration–not when the firefighter was doing laundry. If it was a laundry-related accident, and the firefighter seeks workers’ compensation, the obvious question is: did the injury occur both during and as a result of work?

In a recent case that answers that question, a firefighter was carrying a 40-pound tote full of laundry up seventeen steps. About halfway up, he felt a sharp pain in his knee and had difficulty walking. Several doctors treated him for a torn meniscus.

The firefighter testified four months after the injury that, when he was not out on a call, his duties at the station included cutting grass, cleaning the station, salting the driveway, doing laundry, cooking meals, and restocking supply closets. The city didn’t contradict that testimony.

Got compensability questions? Get Simply Research

The claim administrator denied the claim on the basis that it was not work-related. The firefighter was simply engaging in the normal activity of walking when he was injured, it reasoned. The Board of Review reversed that decision, and the city appealed.

For a claim to be held compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the employee must have received a (1) personal injury (2) in the course of employment and (3) resulting from that employment.

Was the firefighter's claim compensable?

A. Yes. He said that doing laundry was a job duty. The city never challenged that testimony.

B. No. It was not work-related because he injured himself when he was just walking, a normal activity that anyone might engage in.

If you selected A, you agreed with the court in Wheeling v. Melsop, No. 24-ICA-379 (W.Va. Ct. App. 04/29/25), which held that the injury occurred during and in the course of his employment.

The court found that the fire fighter sustained a personal injury to his knee that was directly caused by his job duties. Those duties included doing laundry, among other things. The injury occured while he was engaged in such duties.

The court rejected the city’s argument that the firefighter was merely walking, not working, when the injury occurred. Further, the risk created by engaging in that activity constituted an increased risk which was peculiar to his employment. 

“The Board was not clearly wrong in finding that [the employee’s] injury is attributable to a definite, isolated fortuitous occurrence in the course of and resulting from his employment as he was performing his job duties at the time of the injury,” the court wrote.

Finally, the court rejected the city’s argument that the firefighter's testimony was not believable because he testified four months after the injury. There was no evidence to refute his testimony, the court stated.

Share This Article: