Buitendorp v Swiss Valley, Inc., 2009 ACO #3
This case involves the claim of a ski instructor at Swiss Valley and whether his alleged injury fell under the “social or recreational exclusion” of MCL 418.301(3). Following a scheduled course that he was teaching, the claimant skied to a terrain park that consisted of jumps and other “elements.” The claimant proceeded over a jump in the terrain park at the request of a co-worker for a picture for the co-worker’s college project. The plaintiff failed to land the jump and suffered a large herniated cervical disc for which surgery was performed the following day. The magistrate determined that neither the picture nor the jump itself were to the benefit of the employer. The magistrate analyzed the case and determined that the injury was compensable as the “major purpose” of the claimant’s overall activities was returning to the ski school, despite the determination that the jump was not a benefit to the employer. The Appellate Commission confirmed the magistrate’s opinion, noting that the ski jump was not a significant enough deviation to take him out of the course of his employment. The dissent aptly questioned “how could the ski jump have anything other than recreation as its “major purpose…” The Supreme Court agreed with the dissent and vacated the magistrate’s decision and the Appellate Commission’s opinion and remanded for the proper analysis under MCL 418.301(3). Key point: if the employee’s activity at the time of the injury (as opposed to “overall activities”) has the major purpose of being social or recreational, the injury is not covered by the Act.
