Which doctrine holds that an injury arises out of employment when the worker is exposed to a risk because of employment?

Prepare for the Certified Authority of Workers Compensation (CAWC) Exam with multiple choice questions and in-depth content. Each question comes with detailed explanations and helpful hints to ensure you are ready for your certification.

Multiple Choice

Which doctrine holds that an injury arises out of employment when the worker is exposed to a risk because of employment?

Explanation:
The idea being tested is how we determine when an injury is connected to work based on the source of the risk. The Positional Risk Doctrine says that if the risk that caused the injury comes from the worker’s job position or duties, the injury “arises out of” employment. This means compensation can apply even if the injury happens off the employer’s premises or outside regular hours, as long as the risk was created by performing the job. In other words, if the job itself places the worker in a position where harm can occur, that harm is considered work-related. For example, a worker who is assaulted while making a visiting call is covered because the danger is tied to the job task of meeting clients. This broadens beyond a strict but-for test, which looks only at whether the injury would have happened without the employment. The other options don’t describe this standard approach and don’t capture the idea that job-related risks, not just the immediate location of injury, determine compensability.

The idea being tested is how we determine when an injury is connected to work based on the source of the risk. The Positional Risk Doctrine says that if the risk that caused the injury comes from the worker’s job position or duties, the injury “arises out of” employment. This means compensation can apply even if the injury happens off the employer’s premises or outside regular hours, as long as the risk was created by performing the job. In other words, if the job itself places the worker in a position where harm can occur, that harm is considered work-related. For example, a worker who is assaulted while making a visiting call is covered because the danger is tied to the job task of meeting clients. This broadens beyond a strict but-for test, which looks only at whether the injury would have happened without the employment. The other options don’t describe this standard approach and don’t capture the idea that job-related risks, not just the immediate location of injury, determine compensability.

Subscribe

Get the latest from Passetra

You can unsubscribe at any time. Read our privacy policy