Law firm softball game injury not work-related, judge rules

Morris James does not have to pay a paralegal’s workers’ compensation claims for an injury he suffered while rounding the bases during a softball game played by firm employees, a Delaware Superior Court judge has ruled.

Related: Does workers’ comp cover on-the-job injury caused by spider nightmare?

After nearly three years of litigation, Judge Ferris W. Wharton said last week that William Weller, a paralegal for Morris James’ bankruptcy practice, was not entitled to the benefits because he had ruptured his Achilles tendon outside the scope of his employment with one of Delaware’s best-known law firms.

Employment-related activity?

The ruling reversed an earlier finding by the state Industrial Accident Board that participation on the team was an employment-related activity that benefited the firm by boosting employee productivity. Wharton, however, said that the board’s decision “misconstrues” settled law and essentially “makes up” a new factor for deciding whether employers are required to pay the benefits.

In a 23-page opinion, Wharton said that Morris James derived no direct benefit from Weller’s involvement with the team, which plays in the Wilmington Lawyers League.

“Such enhanced productivity is a consequence of the increased morale, c[a]maraderie and health of the employees resulting from participating on the softball team and is the very type of benefit this court admonished the board to disregard,” Wharton wrote March 29.

“Morris James is a law firm; its goal is to bring in legal business. Morris James does not advertise its legal services at games, its clientele does not attend or participate at games, and softball has no beneficial monetary impact on the firm.”

Felt pressured to play

Weller, who has been with the firm since 2002, convinced the board last year that Morris James brought softball into the orbit of employment at the firm by paying for equipment and signing liability agreements so the team could practice in the area. He had also pointed to testimony from other employees at the firm who said they felt pressured to play in the games.

Related: Workers’ comp vs. personal injury: Understanding the differences is essential

The board found in its ruling that the involvement of several of the Morris James’ vendors could have resulted in cost savings on services provided to the firm.

Participation not a job requirement

But Wharton said that employee participation was voluntary, and there was no evidence that playing on the team was a job requirement. Wharton also blasted as “entirely conjecture” the board’s conclusion that vendor involvement had resulted in a direct benefit for the firm.

“Conjecture is not evidence,” Wharton wrote. “[The board] does not provide even a mere scintilla of evidence to support the conclusion, nor would a reasonable mind accept it as adequate.”

The case, on appeal to the Superior Court, was captioned Morris James v. Weller.