The Zone of Special Danger is an integral feature of the Defense Base Act, a system of federal workers’ compensation that provides benefits to certain defense contractors. What is often misunderstood, however, is the history of the Zone of Special Danger (or “ZOSD”). Considering the ZOSD’s age, there is still a lot of litigation about the doctrine’s applicability. Below, I provide some explanation about the origins of the ZOSD and how recent courts have honored the origins of the ZOSD in thoughtful opinions. The Zone of Special Danger is an Import from England: First, it is important to understand that the ZOSD is an import from English caselaw. In Thom v. Sinclair, a case published in 1917, the House of Lords analyzed whether an injury “arose out of” employment when a brick wall fell on the shed in which the employee was working. Lord Shaw wrote: There may be causes ofRead more

Last year, I wrote a blog article about a Defense Base Act case from the Benefits Review Board involving a slip-and-fall in a shower. That case, Ritzheimer v. Triple Canopy, Inc., addressed the scope of the zone of special danger. Recently, the Middle District of Florida affirmed the Benefits Review Board decision. The zone of special danger does, in fact, apply to a slip-and-fall while exiting a shower. Factual Background and Procedural History: The facts of the case were laid out by the BRB. On March 3, 2012, the claimant exited his shower. He slipped on the wet bathroom floor and fell. The claimant’s injuries included four broken ribs and a punctured lung. Later, after returning to the United States and undergoing medical treatment, the claimant developed depression. Initially, the employer/carrier paid the claim. But then they stopped, arguing that the cause of the claimant’s injury was personal in natureRead more

One of the most interesting zone of special danger cases from 2015 has been briefed for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case, Jetnil v. Chugach Management Services, asks whether the zone of special danger doctrine should apply to local nationals who are injured in their home country. So far, the administrative law judge, Benefits Review Board, and Director have all said that the zone of special danger should apply. Employer and Carrier disagree, and they have taken the claim all the way to the Ninth Circuit. The Benefits Review Board’s Jetnil Decision: Like I mentioned in last year’s post about Jetnil, the employee was injured while he was fishing on the reef at Gagan Island (part of the Republic of the Marshall Islands). The employee, who was a citizen of the Republic, slipped and cut his foot on coral. The injury resulted in a below-the-knee amputation and subsequentlyRead more

Slipping in the bathroom is covered under the zone of special danger. So says the Benefits Review Board in a new, published Defense Base Act decision, Ritzheimer v. Triple Canopy, Inc. Claimant worked as a force protection officer in Israel. Although he could not provide his exact work locations and duties, Claimant testified that he lived in an apartment in Be’er Sheva as a condition of his employment. The Employer selected, paid for, and furnished the apartment. Those furnishings, however, did not include a bath mat. Bathing and good personal hygiene were part of his job because his overseas employer, as well as the U.S. Government, required professionalism, including good grooming. On March 3, 2012, Claimant was injured while exiting his shower. He slipped on the wet bathroom floor and struck his right side on the edge of the tub. Claimant sustained significant injuries: four broken ribs and a puncturedRead more

A new Benefits Review Board case addresses an interesting zone of special danger issue. Specifically, the case addresses the applicability of the zone of special danger doctrine to a local national employee who was injured in his home country. Factual Background: In Jetnil v. Chugach Management Services, the employee was injured while he was fishing on the reef at Gagan Island (part of the Republic of the Marshall Islands). The employee slipped and cut his foot on the coral. His cut developed into a serious medical condition, ultimately requiring a below-the-knee amputation. As with all zone of special danger cases, the obligations and conditions of the injured worker’s employment are incredibly important. Here, the employee was a citizen of the Republic of the Marshall Islands. He resided on Kwajalein Atoll, which is also home to the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command’s Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site. The employeeRead more

The First Circuit just affirmed an award of death benefits to the widow of an employee killed in a traffic accident in Tbilisi, Georgia. In Battelle Memorial Institute v. DiCecca, the decedent was killed when his taxi was hit head-on by a drunk driver. At the time of the crash, he was traveling in a company-provided taxi to a clean and sanitary grocery store. He did not want flies on his meat. The widow filed a claim for Defense Base Act benefits, which the employer denied. Both the administrative law judge and the Benefits Review Board ruled in the widow’s favor and awarded benefits. In response, the employer petitioned the First Circuit to review and overturn the award. The First Circuit declined to do so, instead affirming the award in a published decision authored by retired Supreme Court Associate Justice David Souter (pictured above). The Zone of Special Danger in the Supreme Court: DiCecca is a DefenseRead more

Does the Defense Base Act’s zone of special danger doctrine extend to grocery shopping? That is a question the First Circuit will have to answer in Battelle Memorial Institute v. DiCecca, where a civilian contractor was killed while traveling in an employer-provided taxi to a grocery store in Tbilisi, Georgia. Grocery Shopping Falls Within the Zone of Special Danger? The First Circuit appeal stems from a Benefits Review Board Decision and Order in DiCecca v. Battelle Memorial Institute. The DiCecca claim stems from the death of a civilian contractor working in Tbilisi, Georgia. The contractor worked five days per week, but remained on-call for emergencies. In addition to wages, the contractor received a monthly allowance for housing and utilities, as well as vouchers for an employer-approved taxi service. On May 16, 2012, the contractor was killed when traveling to a grocery store, when his taxi was struck head-on by another car.Read more