## Facts

- Tyrone Cotton worked for Eastway Corporation as a janitorial supervisor.
- His regular duties included cleaning the break room and bathrooms, dumping trash, and wiping tables.
- Cotton sometimes performed tasks outside his written job description, such as moving furniture.
- Cotton’s job description did not include maintaining or repairing the workplace vending machine.
- In May 2006, while working in the break area, a coworker asked Cotton to help retrieve food stuck in the vending machine.
- Cotton attempted to help by pushing/tipping the machine, and he injured his foot during that effort.
- Cotton left work shortly after the injury; although he initially could walk, his condition worsened over the next several weeks until he could not walk.
- Cotton ultimately underwent surgery for the injury.
- Cotton filed a workers’ compensation claim, which the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (BWC) denied.
- Cotton appealed the denial to the court of common pleas; both sides moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the BWC and denied Cotton’s motion, concluding the injury did not occur in the course of and arising out of employment.
- Cotton appealed to the Second District Court of Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether an injury suffered while pushing/tipping a vending machine to help a coworker retrieve stuck food occurred “in the course of” and “arising out of” employment under Ohio workers’ compensation law.
2. Whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment to the BWC on the ground that the record lacked evidence connecting the vending-machine activity to the employer’s business or direction.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for the BWC.
- The court held that Cotton’s conduct in tipping the vending machine was outside the course of employment because it was not part of his job duties and there was no evidence the employer required, authorized, or knowingly accepted that conduct.
- Because the record contained no evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could find the required work connection, summary judgment against Cotton was proper.

## Legal Principles

- To participate in the Ohio Workers’ Compensation Fund, an injured worker must show the injury occurred “in the course of” and “arising out of” employment; both elements must be met.
- “In the course of employment” focuses on the time, place, and circumstances of the injury and whether the activity is sufficiently related to the employee’s work or the employer’s business.
- “Arising out of employment” requires a causal connection between the injury and the employment; a risk that is personal or voluntary, rather than work-related, generally will not qualify.
- An employee’s performance of tasks outside a formal job description may still be work-related when the task is done for the employer’s benefit and at the employer’s direction, permission, or with the employer’s knowledge and acceptance.
- On summary judgment, the nonmoving party must point to evidence creating a genuine dispute of material fact; when the record contains no evidence of employer direction, permission, or knowledge/acceptance of the activity, summary judgment may be granted.

## Conclusion

Because Cotton’s attempt to tip the vending machine was not within his janitorial duties and the record showed no evidence that Eastway required, permitted, or knowingly accepted that activity (or that it materially served Eastway’s business), the court concluded the injury was outside the course of and not sufficiently connected to employment; it therefore affirmed summary judgment for the BWC.


Cotton v. Bureau of Workers' Compensation, 192 Ohio App.3d 221 (2011)