## Facts

- Eleanor L. Perry worked as a certified nursing assistant (CNA) for Mountain Towers Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center, a nursing home.
- Before starting work, Perry attended an orientation that included training on safe patient-lifting methods.
- Mountain Towers classified certain residents as “two-person lift” patients and instructed staff that a single employee must not lift those patients alone.
- The two-person-lift requirement appeared in a written policy; violating it could lead to termination.
- Perry signed a written acknowledgment that she understood the two-person-lift policy.
- During a night shift on October 26, 2003, a resident who was classified as a two-person lift asked Perry for help getting to the bathroom.
- The only other CNA available could not assist, and the resident refused to use a bedpan.
- Perry chose to lift the resident without assistance; during the transfer, the resident’s wheelchair moved and Perry strained her back.
- Perry reported the injury to Mountain Towers and stated that she was hurt while lifting a two-person-lift resident by herself.
- Perry filed a Wyoming workers’ compensation claim; the employer and the Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division objected, and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) denied benefits based on a safety-rule violation. The district court affirmed, and Perry appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the OAH correctly applied Wyoming’s safety-rule violation framework (from *Smith v. Husky Terminal Restaurant, Inc.*) to find Perry’s injury occurred outside the course and scope of employment.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the OAH’s findings that the two-person-lift rule was expressly stated, communicated, enforced, and not knowingly accepted or benefited from by the employer.

## Decision

- The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order affirming the OAH’s denial of benefits.
- The court held the OAH properly applied the *Smith* factors to conclude Perry stepped outside the course and scope of employment by knowingly violating a clear work restriction.
- The court held substantial evidence supported the OAH’s factual findings, including Perry’s training, her signed policy acknowledgment, and her admission that she lifted a two-person-lift resident alone when she was injured.

## Legal Principles

- Workers’ compensation requires an injury that arises out of and in the course of employment; conduct can fall outside that scope even if it occurs at work.
- Under *Smith v. Husky Terminal Restaurant, Inc.*, an employee may be found outside the course and scope of employment when:
  - the employer expressly and unequivocally prohibited the conduct,
  - the prohibition was communicated to the employee,
  - the prohibition was enforced (not routinely tolerated), and
  - the employer did not knowingly accept the benefits of the prohibited conduct.
- A clear safety rule, documented in writing and confirmed by employee acknowledgment, supports a finding that the employee knowingly violated a work restriction.
- On judicial review of an administrative decision, the court does not reweigh evidence; it asks whether substantial evidence supports the agency’s factual findings and whether the agency applied the correct law.

## Conclusion

The Wyoming Supreme Court held that Perry’s back injury was not compensable because she was injured while lifting a two-person-lift resident alone in violation of a clearly communicated and enforced safety rule, and the record contained substantial evidence supporting the OAH’s finding that this safety-rule violation placed her outside the course and scope of employment under the *Smith* test.


Perry v. State, 134 P.3d 1242 (2006)