Injuries to workers can occur in many ways, but fewemployers expect such injuries to come out of an employee'snightmare. When that happens, is the injury covered by workers'compensation? According to the Court of Appeals of Arkansas, theanswer is no. But why?

In November 2015, Shawn Hansen was employed by the City ofSiloam Springs, Ark., as a firefighter and an EMT. Hansen worked24-hour shifts. During his shifts, he was required to stay onpremises unless he was performing a work-related errand oractivity. Because of the 24-hour scheduling scheme, the cityprovided sleeping arrangements and encouraged the employees tosleep during nighttime hours.

On one such shift, at around 1:30 or 2:00 in the morning,Hansen awoke from a bad dream in which he believed spiders werecrawling all over him. During his sleep-based stupor, he jumpedfrom his bed and suffered a fracture of the long bone on theoutside of his left foot that connects to his little toe (the leftfifth metatarsal).

The injury ultimately required surgery. Hansen filed a workers'compensation claim, but his claim was challenged on the basis thatthe injury was not work-related. An administrative law judge foundthat although Hansen's sleep benefited the employer, the dreamabout spiders was idiopathic in nature — that is, of unknown origin— and that the idiopathic dream caused him to jump out of bed andinjure himself. The administrative law judge found that sleeping inthe employer-provided facilities did not increase the risk of harmand determined that Hansen failed to prove that he had suffered acompensable injury. Hansen appealed that decision.

Related: Massachusetts top court limits definition of'regular compensation' in workers' comp case

Accidental injury?

On appeal, Hansen alleged that the injury was compensable. Thecourt noted that to be compensable the injury must be anaccidental one causing internal or external harm that arises out ofand in the course of employment. It must be established bymedical evidence supported by objective findings that can't comeunder the voluntary control of the patient. It was Hansen's duty toprove a compensable injury by a preponderance of the evidence, thecourt said.

Hansen argued that his injurywas not idiopathic. According to prior courtdecisions, an idiopathic injury is one whose cause is personal innature or peculiar to the individual. Hansen disagreed that hisinjury was caused by his dream, taking the position that the injuryoccurred due to his employer-provided sleeping arrangements. Thisargument was basically a request for the court to revisit theevidence and reach a different conclusion.

Related: Workers' comp vs. personal injury: Understandingthe differences is essential

The appeals court explained its standard of review: Ifreasonable minds could reach the same conclusion as the ArkansasWorkers' Compensation Commission, the appellate court had to affirmthat decision. The court then found thatthe commission had substantial evidence to support itsdecision.

Hansen's next argument was that even if his injury was deemed tobe idiopathic, his work conditions contributedto the risk of injury, so it should be deemedcompensable. The court noted that because an idiopathic injuryis not related to employment, it is generallynot compensable unless employment conditions contributed to therisk, for example, putting a worker with poor equilibrium in aposition that increases the dangerous effect of a fall.

The commission found that in Hansen's sleeping quarters at work,there was no added danger or risk, and it was reasonable toconclude that Hansen would likely have experienced the same type ofsleeping conditions at home in his bed. Thus, the sleepingarrangement at Hansen's job site didn't add or contribute tothe risk of injury. The appellate court determined that reasonableminds could indeed reach the same conclusion as the commission onthis issue as well, and Hansen failed to prove that he sustained acompensable injury.

The case is Hansen v. City of SiloamSprings, 2018 Ark. App. 67 (Ct. App).

Author's Note: Initially, when readingthis case it seems impossible for a reasonable person to come tothe conclusion that the commission reached. Generally, if a personis injured while on the job, he should be compensated for hisinjury. This case is a little different, though, due to the24-hour shift nature of the firefighting and EMT positions. Theemployer here clearly had to make sure that the sleepingarrangements were safe and didn't pose any increased risk ofinjury. Often, firefighters and EMTs have to jump out of bedquickly to respond to an emergency, so it seems reasonable that theemployer would make the sleeping situation as safe as possible forthe quick movements that occur after a call is received.

Related: 10 workers' compensation trends to watch in2018