Amazon worker didn’t use enough force to cause injury: Court

A worker failed to show he used enough exertion at his Amazon warehouse job to have caused his shoulder injury, the Virginia Court of Appeals in Richmond held on Tuesday.

In Bowers v. Amazon.com, a three-judge panel unanimously affirmed a decision of the Virginia Worker Compensation Commission denying the man workers compensation for a shoulder injury he said he sustained trying to pull plastic from boxes.

William Bowers worked as a warehouse associate for Seattle-based Amazon.com Inc. His job duties involved maintaining merchandise on racks and removing plastic wrapping from boxes and positioning them properly so the items would be readily accessible to forklift drivers or “pickers.”

On July 7, 2016, he said he was attempting to remove “balled-up plastic wrap” around several boxes at the back of a pallet stacked about shoulder height. In an attempt to pull the boxes closer to the edge to make them accessible, he said he tugged on the plastic and felt a “pop” in his shoulder. He reported the incident and sought medical treatment. He then filed a request for medical and temporary disability benefits, and in his interview with the claims adjuster, he said he did not jerk the plastic from the boxes or pull with “a huge amount of force.”

A deputy commissioner of the Virginia Worker Compensation Commission denied his claim, determining that because he used “minimal force” and was not involved in an awkward movement that the injury did not arise from his employment. The full commission affirmed the decision, finding that Mr. Bowers failed to establish that a “significant work-related exertion” caused his injury. One commissioner dissented from the majority, and Mr. Bowers appealed.

The appellate court affirmed the commission’s decision. The court noted that for an injury to be compensable under Virginia’s Workers Compensation Act, a claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury was caused by an accident, sustained in the course of employment, and arose out of the employment. 

The court found that Mr. Bowers failed to show a “causative danger” and that since he did not exert “heavy force” when he pulled the plastic, that the commission did not err in concluding that he failed to prove that his injury was caused by a “work related risk or significant work related exertion” and therefore did not “arise out of” his employment.