A majority of the
Commission held that a teacher’s attempt to swat an insect was
compensable, reasoning that an insect flying in the classroom was a
distraction to the teacher’s class and her attempt to swat the insect
was to maintain order and control of the class. The dissent argued the
flyswatter incident was not compensable because it is excluded as a
positional risk.
Claimant, a French teacher
at defendant high-school, testified that while teaching a class, a large
insect flew into the classroom. The girls in the class were screaming as
they thought it was a bee. Claimant swung at the insect with a
flyswatter while reaching above her head and felt something strange in
her right shoulder. She was diagnosed with an acute dislocation of her
right shoulder.
During the following years,
claimant repeatedly dislocated her right shoulder while sleeping,
reaching across the passenger seat in her car and falling. Following
surgery, claimant’s doctor opined that her recurrent dislocation of her
right shoulder was related to the initial injury at school.
The arbitrator found
claimant permanently disabled to the extent of 2.5% loss of use
A majority of the
Commission modified the decision of the arbitrator to find claimant
entitled to 25% loss of use of the right arm. The majority found, based
on the credible testimony of the claimant, that the insect flying in the
classroom was a distraction to her class and the claimant’s attempt to
swat the insect was to maintain order and control of her class.
Therefore, claimant’s attempt to swat the insect was related to her
responsibilities as a teacher.
The dissent argued the
flyswatter incident was not compensable because it is excluded as a
positional risk. The diss explained that an insect entering a classroom
was not a risk of employment. Further, the dissent argued causal
relationship was not established, contending claimant had a congenital
condition and the dislocations following the flyswatter incident were
not work-related.
