School Crossing Guard Beats City’s Bid to Stop Her Workers ‘ Compensation Benefits

The Virginia city of Chesapeake has lost its bid to deny workers’ compensation medical benefits to a school crossing guard who injured her wrist when she fell while keeping her eyes on children around her crosswalk

The city argued that the guard should have been looking down where she was walking and that she failed to initially identify any environmental factors contributing to her fall.

“Photos show no defect in the area and nothing to support reasonable inference of what may have caused the fall. The defendant contends one cannot infer that watching children caused the fall and there is no evidence a distraction contributed to her fall,” the city argued.

But a Virginia workers’ compensation deputy commissioner sided with the guard who has done the job for 23 years. That ruling has now been upheld upon review by the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission (VWCC).

The crossing guard testified that she was originally trained by the police department and uses a whistle and handheld stop sign to stop oncoming traffic to allow children a safe crossing. She said she was trained to avoid looking at the ground and to be attentive to her surroundings, scanning the area for children and oncoming traffic. She further testified that some of the children, called “runners,” have special needs, making them particularly vulnerable. The safety of these students demands special attention, requiring that she be looking directly at them to make sure they do not run in front of oncoming traffic, she maintained.

On the morning of July 19, 2022, the claimant was working at a school crosswalk in Chesapeake. She had assisted one child across the street, stopping traffic on Terry Drive. After the child was safely across, she allowed each side of traffic to continue. As the claimant started walking back to the sidewalk, she overheard more children approaching the crosswalk. She looked to her left, right, and forward to make sure the children were not running toward her onto the street. While so engaged, she took another step, feeling the difference between the water main and the roadway. She took one more step and stumbled, falling forward onto the sidewalk, injuring her right hand.

On cross-examination, she agreed that at her deposition she stated she had “no clue” what caused her to fall. She testified that when she sought medical treatment, she told them she remembered the water main and that she tripped, but she did not know exactly what she tripped over. She repeated that she was not looking down but instead scanning for children and traffic.

She went to a medical facility where her hands were cleaned and x-rays taken. She was provided a brace for her right hand and medication for swelling and pain. When she returned in one week, her hand was still swollen, so she was referred for physical therapy. She attended therapy twice a week until she was notified by the employer that her claim had been denied. She continues to have problems with her right hand, including reduced strength and a knot in the knuckle of her little finger.

The deputy commissioner found the claimant to be a credible witness, one who was diligent in the performance of her job duties and who took the duties seriously.

She testified that she was not looking down at the time of her fall because she was always looking around for students and traffic as she was trained to do. Her testimony was corroborated by that of her supervisor, who testified that crossing guards need to pay attention to their surroundings, including children and traffic.

She testified that her left foot was on the water main immediately before her fall. A photo shows the water main is not entirely level with the surrounding pavement.

The deputy commissioner concluded that the presence of the water main, coupled with the claimant’s job duties, which required her to be constantly scanning for children and traffic, are conditions of her employment that led to her fall and injury. Accordingly, the commissioner found that the accident arose out of the claimant’s employment and, thus, the injury to her right hand was compensable.

The city argued on review the claimant did not identify any environmental factors contributing to her fall. The city claimed photos showed no defect in the area. The city denied there was any way to infer that watching children caused the fall and contended there was no evidence a distraction contributed to her fall.

The VWCC disagreed with the city. It compared the case to one in which a corrections officer slipped and fell as he was descending stairs and while observing a watch tower, “one of the security functions of his employment.”

Because the crossing guard’s attention was diverted to her employment-related task, she fell. Thus, her injury occurred because of the performance of her job duties in a particular manner and therefore arose out of her employment, the VWCC concluded in upholding the deputy commissioner’s decision.

Topics Workers' Compensation Talent Virginia K-12