Could Seamstress who Fell Rushing into Warehouse Sew Up Workers’ Comp Claim?

What Do You Think?

Employees seeking workers’ compensation benefits may sometimes feel their injury is compensable simply because it happened at work during work hours. But as a case involving a seamstress for law enforcement shows, that’s not always true.

The claimant worked in a warehouse for the Nevada police department, where she repaired officers’ uniforms. One morning, about five minutes before her shift, she ran into the warehouse, and, doing her best Indiana Jones impression, ducked under a closing garage door at an employee entrance.

After she ducked and was about to stop running, she twisted her ankle, causing her to fall. She injured her left arm and shoulder trying to protect her head from hitting the floor. She said she didn’t know why she was rushing or why she twisted her ankle. There were no defects in the floor or any other part of the area that would have caused the incident.

The carrier denied the seamstress' workers' compensation claim, contending that the injuries didn’t arise out of employment. The claimant appealed.

In Nevada, there are four categories of injury for purposes of determining if the injury arose out of employment: employment risks, personal risks, neutral risks, and mixed risks. A neutral risk is a hazard that is not distinctly connected to the employment or to the employee's personal circumstances. 

If a risk is neutral, it still may arise out of employment if, under the increased-risk test, the nature of the work or the workplace increases the risk of that injury.

Did the claimant’s injuries arise out of work?

A. No. Entering the door did not expose her to a risk that was greater than the general public typically faces.

B. Yes. She was injured during work hours at her place of employment.

If you selected B, you agreed with the court in Sedgwick CMS, Inc. v. August, No. 89477-COA (Nev. Ct. App. 01/30/26), which found that the claim was not compensable.

Looking for "course and scope" information? Simply Research has it.

The court agreed that the risk or injury the claimant faced was neutral; it bore no particular relation to her employment or to any defects in the building, and was also not purely personal. 

Further, the claimant failed to demonstrate how her use of the garage door placed her at greater risk than the general public faced.

Because she failed to show she faced a heightened risk of injury, she could not demonstrate that her injuries arose out of her employment. The court affirmed the denial of the claim.

Share This Article: