## Facts

- Mary S. Sandberg worked for J.C. Penney as a custom decorator selling home furnishings, spending most work time traveling to customer appointments and working from home; she worked in the employer’s studio about one day per week.
- To perform her job, Sandberg was required to keep current fabric samples and related materials available; she had been reprimanded for not having current samples at customer meetings.
- Sandberg kept current samples in her van, which functioned as her work “office,” but could not safely store all items there.
- The employer prohibited storing excess samples at the studio and instructed Sandberg to store them at home or another safe, dry location; she stored excess samples in her home garage and periodically exchanged them with the van.
- A fabric collection sale ended on a Saturday and a new collection began on Sunday, requiring Sandberg to change out samples.
- On the injury date, Sandberg left her house to go to her garage to swap the samples in her van as required for work.
- While walking from her house to the garage, she tripped over her dog, fell, and was injured.
- J.C. Penney denied her workers’ compensation claim; an ALJ and the Workers’ Compensation Board upheld the denial on the ground that the injury did not “arise out of” employment.

## Issues

1. Whether the Board applied the correct legal test for the “arising out of” element of compensability under ORS 656.005(7)(a) when the injury occurred at home during an employer-required task.
2. Whether focusing on the employer’s lack of control over a home hazard (the dog) improperly displaced Oregon’s risk-based “arising out of” analysis.
3. Whether the nature of claimant’s mobile and home-based work required the Board to treat her home/garage activity as part of the work environment for purposes of the compensability inquiry.

## Decision

- The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the Board’s order and remanded.
- The court held that the Board committed an error of law by treating employer control over the home hazard as decisive and by failing to apply Oregon’s established “arising out of” risk analysis in light of claimant’s work obligations and required use of her home garage.
- The court directed the Board to reconsider compensability using the correct framework rather than categorically treating the risk as purely personal because it occurred at home.

## Legal Principles

- Under ORS 656.005(7)(a), a compensable injury must “arise out of” and occur “in the course of” employment; the elements are evaluated together but address different inquiries (causal connection versus time, place, and circumstances).
- “Arising out of” is analyzed through risk assessment: employment-related risks, personal risks, and neutral risks; the key question is whether the employment exposed the worker to the risk that caused the injury.
- Employer control of the premises or hazard is not a stand-alone test for “arising out of”; an injury may arise out of employment even when the employer does not control the specific physical condition.
- When an employer requires work to be performed from home or requires storage and handling of work materials at home, the home location and associated activity may be treated as part of the work setting for risk analysis.

## Conclusion

The court held that the Board used an incorrect “control” approach to the “arising out of” requirement and ordered a remand for reconsideration under Oregon’s risk-based compensability analysis, accounting for claimant’s employer-directed use of her home garage to perform required work tasks.


Sandberg v. J.C. Penney Co., 243 Or. App. 342, 260 P.3d 495 (2011)