Accidents occurring on the respondent’s premises during the petitioner’s personal time are not compensable.

The petitioner was employed as a part-time personal trainer for the respondent, a health club and athletic facility. The petitioner trained clients from 6:00 to 7:00 a.m., 8:00 to 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 to 3:00 p.m. On September 22, 2010, at 11:15 a.m., the petitioner tripped, fell and broke her wrist on the respondent’s premises. She filed a workers’ compensation claim. The respondent denied the claim, asserting that the petitioner was not training a client at the time of her incident, but was herself working out.

At trial, the petitioner admitted that her 11:00 a.m. client had not appeared for her session. However, the petitioner claimed she was moving exercise weights she intended to use with that client when she was injured. The petitioner’s supervisors’ testimony contradicted these statements. Specifically, they indicated that the petitioner told them she was working out on her own and was not training anyone when the accident occurred. Also, both supervisors testified that the petitioner was in her own workout clothes at the time of her injury, not in the black trainer’s shirt she would have been wearing were she working with a client. The petitioner claimed to have removed her uniform because of the heat.

In dismissing the petitioner’s claim, the Judge of Compensation relied on Sparrow v. La Cachet, Inc., 305 N.J. Super. 301 (App. Div. 1997) and Zahner v. Pathmark Stores, Inc., 321 N.J. Super. 471 (App. Div. 1999). The employee in Sparrow, a beautician, after ending her own job responsibilities for the day, requested a facial and was burned in the process. Despite the fact that the injury occurred at her workplace, her employer was not responsible for providing workers’ compensation benefits because she was on her own time. In Zahner, a supermarket employee sustained injuries when she slipped and fell after she had punched out and had begun shopping for herself. Although her injuries occurred on her employer’s premises, she was not entitled to workers’ compensation because she was not working at the time. The Judge of Compensation found these cases to be factually analogous and, accordingly, dismissed the petitioner’s claim. This appeal followed.

The Appellate Division affirmed the judge’s decision. In doing so, it found the detail that the petitioner was out of uniform to be significant, as had the Judge of Compensation. “[Petitioner] changed out of her uniform and into her personal clothes,” the Judge of Compensation had reasoned, “because she was on her personal time and no longer working.” The Appellate Division found that there was insufficient credible evidence presented by the petitioner to establish that her injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment. “Petitioner,” the Appellate Division concluded, “had simply not met her burden.”

Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter 2013