2010AP883 City of Kenosha v. LIRC

Listen to this article

Employment
Worker’s compensation; well-being activity exclusion

A firefighter injured at the fire station while playing basketball is entitled to worker’s compensation.

“I observe that the plaintiff’s position demands a very unnatural reading of the statute, and would produce byzantine inquiries and bizarre results. For example, under that analysis, Captain Leipzig would be covered by the Worker’s Compensation Law if, during his ‘idle time,’ he burned himself in the firehouse kitchen whipping up a batch of frosted brownies, but not if he pulled a muscle while lifting weights provided in the firehouse in order to maintain the strength necessary to carry a full-grown man out of a burning building. He would be covered for choking on a Doritos chip while watching ‘Desperate Housewives’ on the firehouse television, but not for a sprained ankle sustained while jogging outside the station house in order to maintain his endurance.

“And, if indeed, the originally-designed purpose of the activity makes any difference, as the [City] argues, then the captain would not be covered while doing calisthenics in the exercise room, something clearly designed to improve physical well-being, and which would be critically important to the performance of his duties; but would be covered if he were fencing, because fencing was not originally designed as a fitness activity, but instead, as practice for a skill essential to remaining alive.

“Under the plaintiff’s analysis, he would not be covered while playing basketball next to the firehouse, but would be covered while slumped in a chair playing a basketball video game. He would be covered for the fitness-worthless activity of miniature golf, which is designed not for ‘physical well-being,’ but merely for fun; but not covered for his time on a stair-climber.

“None of this would make any sense at all, and courts are obliged to refrain from reading statutes in a manner which creates absurd results.”

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2010AP883 City of Kenosha v. LIRC

Dist. II, Kenosha County, Schroeder, J., Anderson, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Zilske, Robert H., Brookfield; McFarlane, Michael, Brookfield; For Respondent: Gibson, Charlotte, Madison; Ramon, Israel, Milwaukee

Full Text