Bunkhouse Rule Whether Work Conditions Require Worker to Live In Bunkhouse

Lexis Nexis Workers Comp Law Center reports on the new South Carolina “bunkhouse” rule case.

Note: Lexis Nexis Law Community is migrating to a new platform this weekend, so when you log on soon, it’ll have a great new look.

Here’s What Happened

A migrant worker fell on a wet sidewalk outside employer-provided housing, fracturing his right ankle. Housing was supplied to the worker at no charge, in part, because the farm was remotely located on St. Helena Island, South Carolina.

The employer terminated the worker citing inability to perform the work duties. Even though the worker had not actually started work, but was hired earlier on the day of his fall, he filed a workers’ compensation claim.

The hearing commissioner determined the worker had not sustained a compensable injury because he was not injured during the course and scope of his employment.

Click Link to Access Free PDF Download

“Avoid the 3 Primary Reasons Injured Workers’ Hire Attorneys”

According to the hearing commissioner, the worker “was under no requirement to live in the employer- provided housing pursuant to his contract for employment.” His work did not require he be on continuous call, and he was not engaged in any activities calculated to further, either directly or indirectly, the business of his employer.

The commissioner also indicated the wet sidewalk was not different in character or design from other sidewalks, and the risk associated with slipping on the sidewalk was not one uniquely associated with his employment; rather, it was one he would have been equally exposed to apart from his employment. The Appellate Panel and circuit court affirmed.

Here’s What The Court Decided

In Pierre v. Seaside Farms, 2010 S.C. LEXIS 288 (Feb. 16, 2010), the Supreme Court of South Carolina reversed and remanded, holding that the injury did, indeed, occur within the course and scope of the employment.

Acknowledging that South Carolina courts had not been called upon to render a decision involving the so-called “bunkhouse rule” (see Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § xx.xx), South Carolina courts generally followed decisions from North Carolina, whose workers’ compensation act was the basis for the South Carolina act, but the circuit court’s reliance upon Jauregui v. Carolina Vegetables, 436 S.E.2d 268 (N.C. Ct. App. 1993), was misplaced.

Whether a worker was contractually required to live on the employer’s premises was not necessarily as important as whether the practical circumstances required that he or she live there.

FREE DOWNLOAD: ” Avoid the 3 Primary Reasons Injured Workers’ Hire Attorneys “

The court found more persuasive the decision in Chandler v. Nello L. Teer Co., 281 S.E.2d 718 (N.C. Ct. App. 1981), aff’d, 287 S.E.2d 890, 891 (N.C. 1982) (allowing benefits where the employee was stationed at a remote work camp for a road building project in Africa and the accident occurred as he was traveling back to his employer’s camp after an off-duty excursion with friends; the worker was still within the confines of the employer’s road project and was returning to his employer-provided sleeping quarters at the time of the accident).

Examining decisions from several other jurisdictions, the South Carolina high court determined the worker in the instant case was essentially required to live on the employer’s premises by the nature of his employment and was making a reasonable use of the employer-provided premises at the time of his accident. The court also indicated that the worker’s injury was causally related to his employment in that it was due to the conditions under which he lived, i.e., a wet sidewalk outside his building.

See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 24.03.

Tom Robinson, J.D. is the primary upkeep writer for Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis) and Larson’s Workers’ Compensation, Desk Edition (LexisNexis). He is a contributing writer for California Compensation Cases (LexisNexis) and Benefits Review Board – Longshore Reporter(LexisNexis), and is a contributing author to New York Workers’ Compensation Handbook(LexisNexis). Robinson is an authority in the area of workers’ compensation and we are happy to have him as a Guest Contributor to Workers’ Comp Kit Blog. Tom can be reached at: compwriter@gmail.com. http://law.lexisnexis.com/practiceareas/Workers-Compensation

Sign Up For the Newsletter
http://tinyurl.com/yfzxrsx

REE WC IQ Test: http://www.workerscompkit.com/intro/
WC Books: http://www.reduceyourworkerscomp.com/workers-comp-books-manuals.php
TD Calculator: www.reduceyourworkerscomp.com/transitional-duty-cost-calculator.php
WC Calculator: http://www.reduceyourworkerscomp.com/calculator.php

Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker or agent about workers’ comp issues.

FREE DOWNLOAD: ” Avoid the 3 Primary Reasons Injured Workers’ Hire Attorneys “